165 Results of the Critical Appraisal of the Sexual Health Rehabilitation Action Plan (SHRAP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sexual Health Service (SHS), a core component of the Prostate Cancer Supportive Care Program at the Vancouver Prostate Centre, focuses on sexual adaptation for the individual or couple following prostate cancer (PC) treatment. The SHS team developed the Sexual Health Rehabilitation Action Plan (SHRAP), a written tool to guide patients and partners through this process. The SHS clinician and the patient/couple use the SHRAP to design interventions tailored to meet the individual needs of the couple and each partner. The purpose of this pilot was to assess patient acceptance of, adherence to, and satisfaction with the SHRAP in clinical practice. This was a prospective longitudinal study using survey data collected at baseline upon receipt of the SHRAP, and at one and two months of follow-up. Data was collected from patient charts and two surveys or a scripted phone interview if a survey was not completed. The SHRAP Acceptability survey assessed the suitability of the content, presentation, and format of the SHRAP. The SHRAP Satisfaction and Adherence Questionnaire assessed the satisfaction of the patient/couple and if they continued to use the SHRAP beyond the initial appointment with the SHS clinician.
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 | 0.061 | 0.187 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".