MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A comparison of written materials vs. materials and counselling for women with sexual dysfunction and multiple sclerosis

2006· article· en· W2099770988 on OpenAlexaff
Jeannine Marguerite Christopherson, Katherine M. Moore, Frederick W. Foley, Kenneth G. Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dysfunctionMedicineOrgasmMultiple sclerosisHuman sexualityLibidoQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyPhysical therapyFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Evaluate whether symptoms of vaginal dryness, low libido, less intense or delayed orgasm could be improved in women with multiple sclerosis who took part in an education or education plus counselling programme. BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction, a prevalent symptom in women with multiple sclerosis, can negatively affect quality-of-life. METHODS: Women attending a large multiple sclerosis clinic were invited and 62 were randomized into one of two groups. Group 1 received written materials on primary, secondary and tertiary sexual dysfunction in multiple sclerosis as well as additional resources (books, websites, list of local psychologists specializing in sexual counselling). Group 2 received the same written materials as well as three counselling sessions from the clinic nurse, the latter two by telephone. The primary outcome measures were the expanded disability status scale and the multiple sclerosis intimacy and sexuality questionnaire-19. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to evaluate sexual dysfunction score over time and to compare two groups. RESULTS: At baseline, total expanded disability status scale scores were not correlated with primary, secondary or tertiary sexual dysfunction. Total multiple sclerosis intimacy and sexuality questionnaire-19 score was correlated with use of anti-cholinergic medications [r (54) = 0.28, P < 0.05], but no other medications, alcohol or tobacco use. Both groups had equivalent and significant reductions in primary sexual dysfunction [F (1) = 14.79, P < 0.001] postintervention. There was a trend towards an interaction effect for tertiary sexual dysfunction [F (1) = 2.88, P = 0.096], in the direction of group 2 (education and counselling). Subjectively, women welcomed the opportunity to discuss sexual concerns and noted that the written information allowed a framework for initiating discussion with their spouses. CONCLUSION: Relatively straightforward interventions provided by a clinic nurse may help women cope with the symptoms of sexual dysfunction associated with multiple sclerosis. Women who do not benefit from basic interventions could then be referred to an expert sexual dysfunction practitioner. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Women with multiple sclerosis experience many disease-related physical and emotional challenges of which sexuality is only one. Sensitivity to sexual dysfunction and being willing to approach the topic is appreciated by women with multiple sclerosis. Nurses do not require in-depth expertise to offer some basic suggestions which may significantly improve life quality and assist the woman with multiple sclerosis to talk about or cope with sexuality issues.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207