Assessment methods in sexual rehabilitation after stroke: a scoping review for rehabilitation professionals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to identify and describe the assessment methods used by rehabilitation professionals to evaluate sexuality for individuals post-stroke, as well as the domains of sexuality addressed. METHODS: needed to meet these inclusion criteria: published studies with a sample of ≥ 50% stroke clients and describing a quantitative or qualitative assessment method that could be used by rehabilitation professionals. This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and domains of sexuality were categorized using the ICF core set for stroke. RESULTS: = 10). Sexual functions were predominantly assessed using standardized tools, while intimate relationships and partner's perspective were generally addressed more by original questionnaires and qualitative methods. A stepwise approach combining relevant assessment methods is presented. CONCLUSIONS: Individually, these diverse assessment methods addressed a limited scope of relevant domains. Future research should combine quantitative and qualitative methods to encompass most domains of sexuality of concern to post-stroke individuals.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONMost of the studies reviewed here used quantitative methods to assess sexuality, rather than qualitative methods, and mostly used standardized assessment tools.Few assessment methods covered all domains related to sexuality.Qualitative methods and standardized assessment tools were shown to be complementary, therefore emphasizing the added value of mixed methods in assessing sexuality after a stroke.Among the methods that were reviewed, certain would be more suitable for the identification of the need to address sexuality (e.g., Life Satisfaction Checklist-11) and others to assess more thoroughly sexuality (e.g., Change in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ-14)).
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it