Surgeon Counseling Regarding Return to Sexual Activity After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Patients highly value surgeon counseling regarding the first sexual encounters after pelvic reconstructive surgery. OBJECTIVES: We performed a qualitative analysis of usual surgeon counseling regarding return to sexual activity after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence. METHODS: Participating surgeons provided a written description of their usual patient counseling regarding return to sexual activity after pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence surgery. Counseling narratives were coded for major themes by 2 independent reviewers; disagreements were arbitrated by the research team. Analysis was performed utilizing Dedoose software and continued until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-two surgeons participated, and thematic saturation was reached. Six major themes were identified: "Safety of Intercourse," "Specific Suggestions," "Surgical Sequelae," "Patient Control," "Partner Related," "Changes in Experience," and "No Communication." Nearly all participating surgeons included counseling on the safety of intercourse and reassurance that intercourse would not harm the surgical repair. Specific suggestions included different positions, use of lubrication, vaginal estrogen use, specific products/vendors, alternatives to (vaginal) intercourse, and the importance of foreplay. Surgical sequelae discussion included possible interventions for complications, such as persistent sutures in the vagina, abnormal bleeding, or de novo dyspareunia. Counseling regarding changes to the patient's sexual experience ranged from suggestion of improvement to an anticipated negative experience. Surgeons more commonly advised patients that their sexual experience would be worsened or different from baseline; discussion of improvement was less frequent. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon counseling regarding the postoperative return to sexual activity varies among pelvic reconstructive surgeons. Most reassure patients that intercourse is safe after surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".