A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sexual and Fertility Rehabilitation: The Sexual Rehabilitation Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have identified improvement in sexual function as a priority for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI). Due to the various secondary sensory, motor, and autonomic consequences following SCI and due to the complexity of sexuality per se, this area can be overwhelming to many health care professionals. The literature indicate that sexual and fertility rehabilitation must be addressed in a biopsychosocial manner and include various disciplines. The multidisciplinary utilization of a Sexual Rehabilitation Framework (SRF) allows the medical and/or psychosocial factors that impede or improve sexual and reproductive function to be examined. The SRF is a user-friendly and simplified way to proactively address the major biopsychosocial areas of sexuality and to create a plan of action for the person with SCI. It is an adjunct tool to the full sexual history, and it encourages all disciplines involved in SCI rehabilitation to address the issue of sexual function in the same manner as they would other activities of daily living. Eight areas are included in the SRF: sexual drive/interest, sexual functioning, fertility and contraception, factors associated with the condition, motor and sensory influences, bladder and bowel influences, sexual self-view and self-esteem, and partnership issues. The use of the SRF is encouraged in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary team work is encouraged in sexual and fertility rehabilitation to move clinicians toward providing proactive and comprehensive care for individuals with SCI or other chronic disabilities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".