Poster (Clinical/Best Practice Implementation) ID 1984772
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives Literature shows that patients with spinal cord injury place high importance on addressing sexual health issues such as fertility, physical functioning, understanding sensory changes and relationship counselling. In order to promote sexual health inclusivity for inpatients at our rehabilitation centre and to assist staff with initiating sexual health discussions, a series of steps was taken to promote sexual health as part of the rehabilitation program. All staff on the ward received a standardized training session and posters were put up around the Centre to promote sexual health for patients with spinal cord injury. A pamphlet for patients was developed and an introduction to sexual health was initiated by staff at two time points during the rehabilitation stay. All new inpatients, regardless of gender, age or disability severity, were offered the pamphlet and the introduction. Methods We conducted a chart review looking at patients before the pamphlet/standardized introduction versus after the implementation to support our hypothesis that patients who received the pamphlet and introduction would be more likely to engage in discussions about sexual health. Results More patients did pursue sexual health discussions with the rehab team after the pamphlet was introduced. However, many patients refused the pamphlet or further sexual health discussion. Demographically, patients who were younger were more likely to express interest in further sexual health discussions. Conclusion Use of an easy-to-implement tool (pamphlet) combined with a standardized introduction is useful for increasing interest in initiating sexual health discussion by inpatients with SCI.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.823 | 0.546 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".