Utilization of the sexual health service from the prostate cancer supportive care program: A chart review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
137 Background: Sexual dysfunction and psychological distress are two of the most important unmet supportive care needs of prostate cancer (PC) patients (pts). The Sexual Health Service (SHS) from the Prostate Cancer Supportive Care Program at the Vancouver Prostate Centre addresses the sexual recovery needs of PC pts and their partners via education and clinical service. This study explores patient characteristics and needs to better understand SHS utilization. Methods: Data was obtained from patient charts, semi-structured interviews, and patient-reported outcome measures from July 2013-June 2017. Analyses include descriptive statistics and pre-post comparisons via parametric (paired t-tests) or non-parametric (Wilcoxon) tests. Results: Data from 667 pts was analysed. Average age was 65yrs ( SD= 7.3, 43-88yrs) and most were in a relationship (79.6%; mean length = 30.5 yrs, SD= 15.2yrs, 9 mos–68yrs). Appointments were attended with partners (42.3%) or alone (56%) and most pts had undergone surgery for their PC (81.8%). Other treatments included radiation (18.2%), androgen deprivation therapy (13.3%), chemotherapy (1.0%), some had multiple treatments. Average time since end of PC treatment to first SHS appointment was 18 mos ( SD= 25.7mos; range, 0-17yrs). At the first SHS appointment, mean self-reported erectile functioning indicated severe dysfunction (IIEF scores: M =6.39, SD= 5.22). Pts reported significant decreases following PC treatment in: quality of erections, orgasm intensity, sexual desire, partner’s sexual desire, men’s sexual self-view, sexual body image and overall sexual satisfaction ( p’s < .01). Patients also reported lower levels of partner intimacy ( p= .003). At first SHS appointment, 34.5% of patients reported one significant ongoing life stressor, and 23.8% reported more than one. Most common life stressors were health (29.4%), family (23.8%), work (15.3%), relationship (8.8%) and financial (6.9%). Conclusions: Analyses support the need for the SHS, as pts report declines in all realms of sexual wellbeing and ongoing life stressors. Findings improve our understanding of the long-term impacts of PC treatment and guide future treatment offerings.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".