017 Sexual Rehabilitation Recommendations for Prostate Cancer Survivors and Their Partners from a Bio-psycho-social Prostate Cancer Supportive Care Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rehabilitative approaches for sexual dysfunction following prostate cancer treatment have largely focused on biomedical therapies despite growing evidence that psychosocial needs are equally important. The present prostate cancer supportive care program’s sexual rehabilitation clinic utilizes a bio-psycho-social approach to manage prostate cancer survivors and their partners via sexual medicine trained registered nurses, with access to physician and counsellor consultations. Despite several centers establishing programs, specific recommendations to patients have not been previously published. The aim of this study is to highlight a novel tool, the Sexual Health Rehabilitation Action plan (SHRAP) and describe its use in providing individualized bio-psycho-social care to prostate cancer patients enrolled in our program. The frequency of bio-psycho-social recommendations provided to patients via the SHRAP were assessed and conclusions drawn surrounding what recommendations were made. Retrospective analysis of data obtained from patient charts, semi-structured interviews and SHRAPs were conducted for visits between July 2013-June 2019. The SHRAP is a standardized 29-item list of bio-psycho-social recommendations. Recommendations of relevance for patients at each appointment visit. The SHRAP contains biomedical strategies (i.e. phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (PDE5i’s) therapy, vacuum pump erection device); educational strategies (i.e. penile massage, orgasmic guidelines); psychosexual strategies (i.e. pleasure-focus, sexual aids); and referral programs (i.e. counseling, couples intimacy workshops).
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".