Exploring Family Planning, Parenting, and Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Experiences of Men With Rheumatic Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore family planning, parenting, and sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care needs and experiences of men with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: Men aged 18-45 years who were diagnosed with at least 1 rheumatic disease and used at least 1 antirheumatic drug were recruited from rheumatology clinics. Research coordinators engaged participants in semistructured phone interviews. A codebook was developed based on the interview transcripts and used to conduct an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants ranged in age from 22 to 44 years (n = 20). Most were heterosexual and had at least 1 child. The most common disease diagnoses were spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. Four themes emerged from the interviews: (1) Men had family planning concerns, particularly related to the heritability of their diseases, their fertility, and potential effects of their medications on their offspring's health. (2) Men felt that fatigue, disability, and/or pain from their diseases either impaired or would impair their abilities to parent. (3) Men often did not discuss sexual dysfunction with their rheumatologists, even when they believed that it arose from their diseases or antirheumatic drugs. (4) Men rarely discussed any family planning, parenting, or SRH issues with their rheumatologists; gender discordance with rheumatologists did not affect men's comfort in discussing these issues. CONCLUSION: Men expressed concerns related to family planning, parenting, and SRH, which they rarely discussed with their rheumatologists. Our study suggests that some men's SRH information needs are incompletely addressed in the rheumatology clinical setting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".