(156) WHY IS IT SO CHALLENGING TO TALK ABOUT SEX? A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF FAMILY DOCTORS’ VIEWS ON THE NEEDS AND BARRIERS TO DEAL WITH THEIR PATIENTS’ SEXUAL HEALTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Evidence shows a lack of training on sexuality in both pre and postgraduate Medicine levels, leading to these professionals’ insecurity in dealing with their patients’ sexual problems. Yet, Family Doctors have a central role in the promotion and education for sexual health of the community. The aim of this study is to identify the main needs and barriers identified by Portuguese Family Doctors in addressing sexuality in their professional context; to assess the receptiveness of Family Doctors to using a training program on sexuality. Methods We conducted 2 focus groups with 10 Portuguese Family Doctors. Both focus groups had a maximum duration of 90 minutes and were moderated by two project researchers. The inclusion criteria were the ability to give informed consent, being Family Doctors with clinical activity and have Portuguese nationality. Professionals participating in another sexuality research study were excluded. Confidentiality and fundamental ethical requirements were respected. The data collected was processed using Braun and Clarke's thematic content analysis and it was anonymized and analyzed using the NVivo Software. Results The results of this study indicated that Family Doctors identified several needs and barriers to the management of sexuality in their professional context, which were informed by both individual and contextual factors. Employing a qualitative methodology enabled us to explore the subjective experiences in dealing with their patients’ sexuality, as constructions dependent on individual context, obtaining in-depth understanding of its complexity. Conclusions The information collected will serve as basis for the content development of a training program on sexuality for Family Doctors. We believe that the present study will have ethical, social, and political implications, contributing to the promotion of sexual health among health professionals and the general population. Conflicts of Interest The authors report no conflicts of interest.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".