A randomized comparison of online mindfulness-based group sex therapy vs supportive group sex education to address sexual dysfunction in breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexual difficulties and vaginal pain are common following treatment for breast cancer. AIM: The goal of this study was to evaluate an online mindfulness-based group sex therapy vs an online supportive sex education group therapy to address these sexual difficulties. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors (n = 118) were randomized to 1 of the 2 arms; 116 provided informed consent and completed the time 1 assessment. Treatment included 8 weekly 2-hour online group sessions. Those randomized to the mindfulness group completed daily mindfulness exercises, and those in the comparison arm read and completed exercises pertaining to sex education. OUTCOMES: Assessments were repeated at posttreatment and 6 months after the completion of the group. RESULTS: There was a main effect of treatment on primary endpoints of sexual desire, sexual distress, and vaginal pain, with all outcomes showing significant improvements, with no differential impact by treatment arm. Secondary endpoints of interoceptive awareness, mindfulness, and rumination about sex also significantly improved with both treatments, with no group-by-time interaction. CONCLUSION: Both mindfulness-based sex therapy and supportive sex education delivered in group format online are effective for improving many facets of sexual function, vaginal pain, rumination, mindfulness, and interoceptive awareness in breast cancer survivors. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: We used a randomized methodology. Future studies should seek to diversify participants. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings highlight the need to offer similar treatments to more breast cancer survivors immediately after and in the years following cancer treatment as a means of improving survivorship quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 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".