Men prefer pre-vasectomy consultation by telephone: a survey of vasectomized men.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic teleconsultation was allowed as an insured service in the province of Quebec, Canada. We assessed the preferences of vasectomized patients for a pre-vasectomy consultation conducted in-person or by telephone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In September 2021, we sought the participation of 214 men who had their pre-vasectomy consultation over the phone to complete an anonymous three-item survey on their preferred modality for pre-vasectomy consultation. They completed their questionnaire in the waiting room of the vasectomy clinic just after the surgical procedure. We calculated the proportion and 95% confidence interval [CI] of patients preferring each modality. We assessed the difference in preference according to the distance between hometown and vasectomy clinic (< 25 km, 25-50 km, and > 50 km) with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Participation rate was 98% (n = 209/214). Most patients would have preferred telephone over in-person pre-vasectomy consultation if they had been given a choice (96%; 95% CI 92% to 98%), if they had had to recommend a modality to a friend (95%; 95% CI 91% to 98%), and if they had had to do a pre-vasectomy consultation again (prefer or no preference; total 97%; 95% CI 94% to 99%). Distance between hometown and vasectomy clinic did not significantly influence their preferences (p > 0.29 for each of the three items). CONCLUSIONS: Vasectomized men preferred having pre-vasectomy consultation by telephone instead of in person. If maintained as an insured service after the COVID-19 pandemic, Canadian physicians offering vasectomy services should consider making this service available to their 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".