MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322768430 · doi:10.1093/sexmed/qfac002

A qualitative study of sexual health and function of females with pelvic cancer

2023· article· en· W4322768430 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacs
KeywordsMedicineSexual functionReproductive healthPsychosocialSexual dysfunctionGynecologyQualitative researchAnal cancerPelvic painObstetricsCancerInternal medicinePsychiatryPopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pelvic cancers are among the most common cancers, impacting millions of individuals worldwide annually. However, little is known about the impact of more rare pelvic cancers on the sexual health of females. Aim: In this study we explored sexual health experiences of female pelvic cancer survivors (FPCS) and their healthcare providers (HCP) in order to identify the most salient impacts of pelvic cancer on sexual function. Methods: = 9). For data analysis, qualitative framework analysis was used. Outcomes: We used the collected data and analysis of findings to establish recommendations including ways to improve sexual health and function in female survivors of pelvic cancer. Results: Most FPCS experienced negative impacts on their sexual health and function through increased pain and dryness, bleeding due to atrophy, decreased libido, and psychosocial issues such as body dysmorphia. Females with the rarer vulvar and vaginal cancers faced additional challenges to their sexual health such as shortening of vaginal canals, high levels of neuropathy, lack of sexual activity with their partners, and suicidal ideation. FPCS had unmet sexual health needs, which can be attributed to lack of appropriate training by HCPs and lack of resources and availability of services. Although HCPs recognized the importance of providing sexual healthcare, they lacked confidence in their ability to facilitate a conversation on sexual health with their patients, and often avoided this topic. Clinical implications: The sexual health outcomes of FPCS can be improved by providing targeted training for HCPs, developing standard resources for sexual health, and integrating tiers of support, including group interventions and counseling. Strengths and limitations: The main strength of this study is that data were collected from HCPs as well as FPCS, thus providing a more in-depth overall picture of the current strengths and weaknesses of the resources for sexual health support available for this patient population. A limitation of this study is that the experiences of transgender men were not captured. Conclusions: Sexual difficulties are very common in all FPCS, particularly survivors of vulvar and vaginal cancers. Improvement of sexual health outcomes is needed in this patient population, which can be achieved by providing more training for HCPs, developing robust resources for FPCS and their sexual health, and providing more opportunities for tiered support.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it