Pharmacists’ practices and views regarding management of sexual health in patients with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual health issues associated with cancer can significantly impact patients' psychosocial well-being and overall quality of life. These issues are frequently medication-related, placing pharmacists in an opportune position to manage sexual health concerns in patients with cancer. Currently, no literature exists exploring pharmacists' practices related to the management of sexual health in oncology patients. METHODS: An anonymous, descriptive, cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted to elicit pharmacists' views and practices regarding managing sexual health in oncology patients. Pharmacists practicing in Canada who provide care to adult malignant hematology or oncology patients were eligible to participate. The survey was disseminated through the Canadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology and through informal oncology pharmacy practitioner networks. RESULTS: Of the 102 pharmacists who participated, 96 completed the survey in its entirety. Most respondents were female, practiced in Alberta, and primarily saw oncology patients in outpatient cancer facilities. Although 85% of participants felt pharmacists should be involved in giving patients an opportunity to discuss sexual health, only 8% reported managing sexual health in at least 50% of their oncology patients. The most commonly agreed upon barriers to this were presence of family members and friends at appointments, lack of knowledge or training, limited time, and the belief that sexual health is not applicable to all oncology patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study explored pharmacists' views and practices regarding managing sexual health in patients with cancer. Several barriers were identified, which may aid in future development of resources to assist pharmacists in routinely addressing sexual health in oncology patients.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".