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 OpenAlexafffund
Niki Oveisi, Zeba Khan, Lori A. Brotto

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSexual MedicineSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207