A randomized controlled trial of an online support group addressing psychosexual distress among women treated for gynecologic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a 12-week, professionally facilitated, asynchronous online support group would reduce sexual distress (primary outcome) and improve sexual function, body image, depression symptoms, relationship satisfaction, and social support (secondary outcomes) in women treated for gynecologic cancer. METHODS: Participants were 398 women recruited from three Canadian provinces and one American cancer center in cohorts of 40. Participants were randomized (50:50 odds) to either the immediate treatment condition (ITC) or the waitlist control condition (WCC). Eligibility included: completed treatment for gynecologic cancer, disease-free for at least 3 months, no more than 5 years post-diagnosis, met criteria for psychosexual distress, willing to discuss sexual concerns, 18 years or older, English speaking, and access to a computer. Participants in the ITC received a 12-week online group along with psychoeducational material each week to stimulate discussion. Two 90-min synchronous sessions were offered in weeks 4 and 8. RESULTS: Reductions in sexual distress for ITC were not significantly different compared to WCC. Similarly, no treatment effects were observed for body image, depression, relationship satisfaction, or social support. ITC showed statistically significant improvements in sexual functioning compared to WCC, but these gains were not retained at 4-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Treatment effects were modest, although in the expected direction. As this study was underpowered, it offers preliminary evidence that an asynchronous, online psychoeducational support group may confer positive benefits for women's sexual functioning. The efficiency, convenience, and accessibility of online interventions has significant potential to close gaps in women's access to evidence-based sexual health care.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".