13 / Contrasting African and Canadian Perspectives: Having conversations about sexuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cancer treatment can have a significant impact on an individualu2019s body image and sexuality. Evidence indicates conversations about these specific consequences do not happen often between cancer patients and health care providers. Purpose: This work will contrast the perspectives of Canadian and African nurses regarding conversations about the topic of sexuality with patients and family members after a cancer diagnosis.Methods: Data were collected through interviews with Canadian nurses (n=34) and through small group discussions with African nurses (n=25). Data were analyzed using a descriptive qualitative approach, identifying significant themes.Results: The participants acknowledged treatment has an impact on patientsu2019 sexuality. Conversations mostly occur during consent processes before treatment or when a patient raised a question about a specific side effect. These conversations rarely covered more than physical changes and did not focus on the impact of changes on emotional and personal relationships or intimacy. Participants expressed personal discomfort and lack of training for holding these conversations. They perceived the conversations as difficult for themselves as well as for patients. Sexuality was often described as a taboo topic, particularly in Africa, and one that was influenced strongly by cultural perspectives. Having time and privacy were also seen as barriers. Implications: Findings support the need to clarify role expectations for all team members about talking with patients regarding sexuality and provide education to support the expected roles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".