From Promoting Healthy Sexual Functioning to Managing Biomedical Sexual Dysfunction: Health Professional Views of Youth Sexual Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A body of work emerging in the last few years has expanded the focus of youth sexual health to include problems in sexual functioning. Recent surveys show that rates of youth sexual functioning problems are similar to those of adults. Physicians' lack of awareness about problems of sexual functioning has been identified as a major obstacle in treatment. Yet little is known about health-care provider (HCP) perspectives on youth sexual functioning. We conducted a descriptive qualitative study with HCPs to learn about their perceptions of adolescent sexual problems and HCP roles in managing these issues including sexual functioning. Nineteen HCPs: Family physicians, nurse practitioners, and public health nurses working primarily with youth in universities, schools, or sexual health clinics were recruited to draw on their expert knowledge and experience. All completed in-depth individual interviews. Data were analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis. Our findings illuminate inconsistent views. Some HCPs, particularly those in youth-focused services, adopt a holistic role in promoting healthy sexual functioning, and others, commonly those in general practice, attend only to biomedical issues related to sexual dysfunction. All HCPs in our study were challenged by a paucity of sexual health preparation in their formal education. HCP interest in youth sexual health affected their efforts to acquire new information and training and, along with the structure of their practice setting, influenced whether they framed their role in youth sexual health holistically within a context of social determination or constrained their role to a medical model. These findings draw attention to the need for new approaches for strengthening knowledge, training, and resources to foster HCP promotion of healthy sexual functioning and prevention of lifelong sexual health problems.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".