MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892671564 · doi:10.1200/jgo.18.42200

Perspectives of Nurses in Africa and Canada Regarding Having Conversations About Sexuality With Cancer Patients

2018· article· en· W2892671564 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marg Fitch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabooHuman sexualityMedicineFocus groupQualitative researchNursingQuality of life (healthcare)Family medicineGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cancer treatment can have a significant impact on an individual's quality of life. In particular, body image and sexuality can be compromised. There is increasing evidence that conversations about these specific consequences are not happening often between cancer patients and health care providers, especially in busy clinical settings. Aim: This work will contrast the perspectives of nurses caring for cancer patients in Canada and in Africa regarding having conversations about the topic of sexuality with patients and family members after a cancer diagnosis. Methods: Data were collected through interviews with nurses (n=34) in Canada and through small group discussions with nurses (n=25) in Africa. Data were reviewed using a descriptive qualitative approach, identifying significant themes. Results: Overall, participants acknowledged treatment can have an impact on a patient's sexuality. If conversations occurred, it was during consent processes before treatment began or when a patient raised a question about a specific side effect. These conversations rarely covered more than the physical changes and did not focus on the impact of changes on emotional and personal relationships or intimacy. Most providers waited for patients to raise any concerns or questions. Most participants expressed their own personal discomfort and lack of training for holding these types of conversations. They perceived the conversations as difficult for themselves as well as for patients. The topic of sexuality was often described as a taboo topic, especially in Africa, and one that was influenced strongly by cultural perspectives. Having time and privacy to hold the discussions were also seen as barriers. Conclusion: The findings support the need to clarify role responsibilities for cancer nurses, as well as other members of the cancer care team, about patient care regarding the area of sexuality, and the provision of education.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207