Sexual health communication between cancer survivors and providers: how frequently does it occur and which providers are preferred?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual health concerns in cancer survivors are often unaddressed by providers. Study objectives were to assess cancer survivors' reported rates of communication with oncology providers about sexual health, preference for such communication with their oncology or primary care providers (PCPs), and factors associated with these communication rates and preferences. METHODS: Sixty-six patients attending a cancer survivorship clinic were asked how often their oncologist addressed and initiated discussion about sexual functioning and whether they wanted their oncologist or PCP to ask about their sexual health. We also assessed whether various sociodemographic characteristics and levels of depression, anxiety, and sexual satisfaction were associated with survivors' sexual health communication rates and preferences. RESULTS: 41% of patients wanted their oncologist to ask about sexual health and 58% of patients wanted their PCP to ask about sexual health. Over 90% of patients reported that their oncologist infrequently addressed sexual health concerns and that their oncologist was unlikely to initiate such discussions. Education level influenced whether patients wanted their oncologist to ask about sexual health. Age, education level, and insurance type influenced whether patients wanted their PCP to ask about sexual health. Levels of depression, anxiety, and sexual satisfaction were not associated with communication rates or preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Patients attending a survivorship clinic reported infrequent communication about sexual health with their oncology providers, despite wanting their providers to ask about sexual health concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it