A Qualitative Study of the Impact of Cancer on Romantic Relationships, Sexual Relationships, and Fertility: Perspectives of Canadian Adolescents and Parents During and After Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to gain insight into perspectives around core domains of adolescent development--romantic relationships, sexual relationships, and fertility--from the vantage point of Canadian adolescents and parents during and after cancer treatment. METHODS: Twenty adolescents (12-17 years old at interview) and 20 parents (who may or may not have had an adolescent interviewed) participated in this study. Using a semistructured guide, adolescents and parents were interviewed separately. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcribed interview data were independently coded according to the study objectives by two trained analysts. Codes were organized into categories that reflected emerging themes. Discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion with the lead investigator. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed main themes for adolescents and parents related to: (1) romantic relationships (opinions on the importance of dating in the context of cancer, expectations that cancer will impact future relationships, dating as a source of moral support, and limited opportunities to engage with partners); (2) sexual relationships (thoughts related to the impact of cancer on future sexual relationships); (3) fertility (initiating treatment as a primary concern and fear of infertility and perceived consequences); and (4) recommendations for care (access to knowledge and support through adolescent-friendly and accessible means). CONCLUSION: Findings from this study highlight cancer-specific relationship and fertility issues faced by adolescents and provide important direction to the development of interventions that may ultimately improve the psychosocial health of adolescents during and after cancer treatment.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".