Medical Counseling on Sexual Enrichment Aids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate women's preferences and experiences regarding health counseling of safe sexual enrichment aid use and hygiene and current counseling behaviors of medical practitioners on this topic. METHODS: This study used mixed methodology, leveraging quantitative data from a cross-sectional survey of 800 women and semi-structured qualitative interview data from 24 women across sexual practice groups. Additionally, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of 192 medical practitioners to understand current counseling behaviors and attitudes. RESULTS: The majority of women (96.2%, 607/631) had never been counseled by a practitioner on safe sexual enrichment aid use and hygiene but would feel comfortable receiving counseling on the subject under certain circumstances. Overwhelmingly, women indicated the need for a nonjudgmental practitioner. Many cited the importance of having a female practitioner and preferred one within obstetrics and gynecology. Among medical practitioners, counseling on this topic was infrequent; 27.0% (52/192) stated that they counsel patients on safe sexual enrichment aid use and hygiene when discussing safe sex, and 21.4% (41/192) reported that this topic is included when counseling women after a sexually transmitted infection diagnosis. Only 7.4% (14/188) and 6.4% (12/188) had received training on this topic or were aware of any professional guidelines or recommendations, respectively. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based guidelines should be developed that practitioners can use to counsel patients, ensuring that women are able to engage in sexual enrichment aid use safely.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".