Perspectives of Nurses in Africa and Canada Regarding Having Conversations About Sexuality With Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".