Feasibility of a Sexual Health Clinic Within Cancer Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As cancer survival rates increase, so does the imperative for a satisfying quality of life, including a fulfilling sexual life. OBJECTIVE: The feasibility and effectiveness of a newly formed Sexual Health Clinic were determined using a nurse-led format, which provided support to survivors in a cancer care setting. METHODS: Twenty-one cancer survivors received assessment, education, and tailored sexual health support by an oncology nurse with specialized skills in sexual health. Two months later, semistructured interviews focused on patients' personal experiences. Questionnaires were also administered to healthcare providers involved in providing the follow-up care. RESULTS: Participants presented with sexual concerns that were psychological, physical, and/or relational. Scores on validated measures of sexual functioning were in the range comparable to those with a sexual dysfunction. Participants were open to being asked about sexual health and wanted professionals available who were skilled in dealing with sexual health services. Most participants experienced an improvement in their well-being and/or sexual life following participation. Some noted more confidence when speaking with their partner about sexual concerns. CONCLUSION: Our pilot Sexual Health Clinic was feasible, and evidence for its effectiveness was based on qualitative feedback. Participants and providers identified a strong need for the inclusion of sexual health services in cancer care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology nurses are in a key position to initiate discussions surrounding sexual health issues related to cancer treatment. Self-awareness, sensitivity, and a nonjudgmental approach are required to address this dimension of holistic cancer care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".