O36 Let’s talk about sex: an occupational therapy clinical evaluation about the importance of sexual intimacy issues in the treatment of patients with persistent pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sexuality is described as an essential part of self-identity crucial to wellbeing. This evaluation considers physical and psychological aspects of sexual intimacy. Seventy percent of rheumatology patients report dissatisfaction with sexual intimacy, yet only 12% of consultations include sexual activity screening. This suggests that health care professionals are reluctant to raise this issue with patients. The complex regional pain syndrome [CRPS] programme at the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases provides specialist rehabilitation to patients managing the impact of musculoskeletal pain disorder in daily life. The CRPS OT team recognise sexual intimacy as an important aspect of personal care which patients raise when clinicians provide the opportunity. OT intervention normalises challenges to sexual intimacy, facilitating shared problem solving. Therapy includes psychological work on body image, self-esteem, sense of sexual-self, anxiety management and communication. Physical issues of allodynia, limited movement, fatigue, positioning, aids and modifications are addressed. Methods: A retrospective evaluation of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure [COPM] within OT clinical notes was undertaken. Using COPM in the rehabilitation process enables identification and measurement of changes in patient perception of occupational performance. Changes in patients’ occupational performance and satisfaction within sexual intimacy following OT intervention through use of this standardised outcome measure were calculated. Patients use a 10-point scale to rate the five most important occupations they are unable to accomplish. A 10-point scale rates performance and satisfaction for each problem pre- and post-programme. Change scores are calculated, with a score of 2 and above being clinically important.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".