Sexual health and gynecological cancer: conceptualizing patient needs and overcoming barriers to seeking and accessing services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current study explored the subjective experiences of women treated for a gynecological cancer, with a focus on filling gaps in the current literature. Topics explored were: (1) women's own definitions of healthy sexuality; (2) services desired to meet needs; and (3) barriers to participation in sexual health-related services. METHODS: Fifteen women participated in a one-on-one, semistructured interview. Data collection and analysis were based on guidelines of interpretive description. RESULTS: Definitions of healthy sexuality included emotional intimacy, body image, sexual self-schema, and sexual response. Unmet sexual needs were reported when women's current sexual experiences did not correspond with their subjective perceptions of healthy sexuality. Most women desired informational services, delivered one-on-one or through written material. Younger women often did not utilize services due to practical barriers and emotional avoidance, while older women reported that shyness and stigma discouraged them from discussing sexuality with their health care team. CONCLUSIONS: In order to understand patient needs and desire for help, health care providers should assess current sexual health and patient perceptions of healthy sexuality. To increase effectiveness of distress screening and treatment interventions, potential barriers must be evaluated and addressed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".