Sexual health communication between cancer survivors and providers: how frequently does it occur and which providers are preferred?
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".