Exploring patients' needs and expectations for information on sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Sexual dysfunction is an important, and often overlooked, sequela of rectal cancer treatment with significant implications for patients' quality of life. The aim of this study was to explore patients' information needs regarding sexual health after rectal cancer treatment and their experiences accessing information on sexual dysfunction throughout the cancer care continuum. The secondary aim was to explore surgeons' perspectives on patients' information needs and gain insight into their experiences providing information on sexual health following rectal cancer surgery. METHOD: A qualitative study was conducted using semistructured interviews with 10 rectal cancer survivors and six colorectal surgeons from a Canadian tertiary care institution. Transcribed interviews were coded independently by two researchers and thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Analysis of patient interviews revealed that patients had limited knowledge of sexual dysfunction symptoms following rectal cancer treatment and received inadequate information on sexual dysfunction from their treating medical team. Patients expressed the desire to receive information on sexual dysfunction in different formats, especially before the start of treatment. The surgeon interviews revealed that colorectal surgeons faced challenges when informing patients about sexual dysfunction. Surgeons did not routinely provide information on sexual dysfunction to all patients; however, they felt that patients should receive high-quality information on sexual dysfunction, both before and after treatment. CONCLUSION: Patients' information needs related to sexual dysfunction after rectal cancer treatment were inadequately met. High-quality informational resources are needed to facilitate communication between patients and physicians and improve patients' understanding of sexual dysfunction.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".