Acceptability of an online relational intimacy and sexual enhancement (iRISE) intervention after breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate an online relational intimacy and sexual enhancement (iRISE) intervention for couples experiencing sexual difficulties following breast cancer (BC). The acceptability of iRISE was evaluated using a single-arm, qualitative design, with 14 couples completing satisfaction surveys and posttreatment interviews. The intervention was found to be acceptable, as demonstrated by high satisfaction ratings and qualitative feedback regarding iRISE and its online delivery. Couples spoke about the helpfulness of iRISE and how the intervention improved their sexual relationship. The use of video conferencing (eTherapy) was widely accepted by participants, who highlighted several advantages of this modality. Overall, the results support the acceptability of this online psychosexual intervention for couples affected by BC. The empirical and theoretical basis for the design of iRISE along with findings from a qualitative analysis of couples' experiences of the intervention's helpfulness to them is discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".