MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The influence of an androgen deprivation therapy educational program on dyadic quality and intimacy for prostate cancer patients and their partners.

2018· article· en· W2807107361 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Wibowo, Richard J. Wassersug, John W. Robinson, Andrew Matthew, Deborah McLeod, Lauren M. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreBC Cancer AgencyPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health NetworkBaker Hughes (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerAndrogen deprivation therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Sexual functionCancerPhysical therapyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

178 Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a common treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PCa), but ADT typically impairs men’s sexual function and couples’ relationships. We offer an educational program to help PCa patients and their partners manage ADT related side effects and to maintain a strong dyadic relationship while the patient is on ADT. Methods: Patients and partners attended a one time 1.5 hour ADT Class. Patients received a copy of the book Androgen Deprivation Therapy: An essential guide for men with prostate cancer and their partners (DEMOS Health, NY), which covers how to manage ADT side effects and make healthy lifestyle changes. We emphasize the importance of physical exercise in preventing or reducing many of the side effects of ADT. 79 couples (patients = 68.8±7.5 years old, partners = 64.9±8.8 years old; relationship duration = 34.6±16.4 years) completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships, and the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise questionnaires at baseline and again 2-3 months later to assess their relational intimacy and dyadic quality. At baseline 73% of patients either had not started or been on ADT for < 3 weeks. Results: Attending the ADT Educational Program was associated with improved dyadic adjustment and relational intimacy but age, relationship duration, baseline strain in the relationship and physical exercise all influence these effects. Specifically, dyadic cohesion improved in patients ≥68 years old. Recreational intimacy increased in patients ≤60 years old and for those in a relationship ≥50 years. Recreational intimacy also improved in partners who had been in a 20-49 years relationship or those reporting at baseline little strain in their relationship. Dyadic cohesion was maintained in participants who increased their frequency of physical exercise. For the above results, all P < 0.05. Conclusions: The ADT Educational Program improves dyadic cohesion and relational intimacy for some patients and partners but age, relationship duration, baseline quality of the relationship, and physical exercise frequency appear to influence the effectiveness of the program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.406 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→