INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES: Holding conversations with cancer patients about sexuality: Perspectives from Canadian and African healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer treatment can have a significant impact on an individual’s sexuality. However, cancer survivors are reporting that very few healthcare professionals are talking with them about the topic. This work was undertaken to gain an increased understanding about the dialogue between cancer care professionals and cancer patients regarding the topic of sexuality. It was anticipated the effort would allow the identification of barriers that could limit dialogue between patients and healthcare providers, as well as offer insight regarding how to overcome such barriers in busy clinical settings. A Canadian sample of 34 healthcare professionals were interviewed and 27 African nurses engaged in a focus group discussion. A content analysis revealed similarities in terms of personal discomfort with the topic and feeling unprepared to discuss it with patients. There were notable differences between the two samples in terms of the barriers related to culture and tradition. African nurses reported significant cultural barriers, stigma and discrimination influencing conversations about sexuality with cancer patients in contrast to their Canadian counterparts.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".