Comfort in sexual health communication among medical students: evaluating the efficacy of an online reflective workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the importance of sexual well-being in overall health, health providers do not communicate with their patients about sexual health sufficiently and highlight their discomfort with the topic as one key barrier. This study tested the effectiveness of a brief reflective sexual health workshop as an online intervention to increase comfort in sexual health communication. Participants were students enrolled on an undergraduate medical programme at a private university in Malaysia who were randomly allocated to a workshop that focused either on sexual health communication (intervention, n = 48) or on cultural competence in communication training (active control, n = 50). While the workshops varied in their focus, both followed identical structures and tasks. Multilevel modelling analyses revealed that both workshops increased subjective (self-reported) comfort and observed comfort through more direct verbal mentions of sex during history-taking. However, the sexual health workshop was more effective than the cultural competence workshop in reducing verbal avoidance behaviours and in promoting awareness of the value of effective communication about sex. Our Findings highlight the value of conducting brief reflective workshops that focus on comfort in communication to supplement other aspects of the medical school curriculum.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".