Exploring Gay Couples’ Experience With Sexual Dysfunction After Radical Prostatectomy: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study examines the experience of three gay couples managing sexual dysfunction as a result of undergoing a radical prostatectomy. Semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of a larger study at an urban hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Interview transcripts were transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The authors clustered 18 subordinate themes under 3 superordinate themes: (a) acknowledging change in sexual experience (libido, erectile function, sexual activity, orgasmic function); (b) accommodating change in sexual experience (strategies: emphasizing intimacy, embracing plan B, focus on the other; barriers: side-effect concerns, loss of naturalness, communication breakdown, failure to initiate, trial and failure, partner confounds); and (c) accepting change in sexual experience (indicators: emphasizing health, age attributions, finding a new normal; barriers: uncertain outcomes, treatment regrets). Although gay couples and heterosexual couples share many similar challenges, we discovered that gay men have particular sexual roles and can engage in novel accommodation practices, such as open relationships, that have not been noted in heterosexual couples. All couples, regardless of their level of sexual functioning, highlighted the need for more extensive programming related to sexual rehabilitation. Equitable rehabilitative support is critical to assist homosexual couples manage distress associated with prostatectomy-related sexual dysfunction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".