Sexual Recovery Following Prostate Cancer: Recommendations From 2 Established Canadian Sexual Rehabilitation Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Supportive sexual health care is much-needed adjuvant care to oncologic management for men with prostate cancer (PCa). AIM: To inspire the initiation of biopsychosocial sexual health programming where it does not exist and to inform program enhancement in existing sexual rehabilitation clinics (SRCs). METHODS: This article reviews the combined 30-year experience of 2 well-established Canadian SRCs for men and their partners after PCa treatments, interwoven with empirical evidence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: To comprehensively review the biopsychosocial approach to sexual health assessment of men with PCa and their partners to direct the practicalities of running a successful and sustainable SRC. RESULTS: A full description of the biomedical and psychosocial approaches, inclusive of comprehensive sexual function, the penile rehabilitation controversy, and other medical and relationship issues affecting sexual adjustment, is provided to highlight the relevance of proper assessment and follow-through for sexual adaptation and adjustment. 10 recommendations for a successful SRC are discussed, including the principles behind developing a sustainable business plan, staff acquisition and training, budget, integration of treatment and research priorities, respectful and multidisciplinary approaches to care, and suggestions of visit formats, protocols, and questionnaires. We recommend a phased approach of an SRC into usual care with the option to provide accessible and equitable care to patients not within proximal access of treating institutions. CONCLUSION: Sexual rehabilitation after treatment for PCa requires a complex treatment process. Providing sustainable sexual rehabilitation programming under the financially strained environment of the Canadian medical system is a challenge; therefore, to provide Canadian patients and their partners with comprehensive cancer care, they deserve a biopsychosocial approach combined with a creative and systematic implementation strategy. Elliott S, Matthew A. Sexual Recovery Following Prostate Cancer: Recommendations From 2 Established Canadian Sexual Rehabilitation Clinics. Sex Med Rev 2018;6:279-294.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".