(161) INCORPORATING SEXUAL HEALTH INTO A BREAST CANCER PRACTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Breast cancer treatment often results in sexual dysfunction, a common yet overlooked consequence of cancer therapies. Sexual health is rarely integrated into routine breast cancer care, even though it significantly impacts survivors’ quality of life. Given the increasing number of breast cancer survivors, there is a pressing need to address sexual health as part of holistic care. Despite established guidelines that recommend addressing sexual dysfunction in cancer patients, healthcare providers often lack the training, time, or resources to do so. The research aims to investigate the best practices for integrating sexual health into breast cancer care, focusing on recent literature review and looking at ways to implement the data in a robust breast cancer clinical practice in the midwest. Objective The study’s primary objective is to explore how sexual health can be incorporated into a breast cancer practice. This includes identifying barriers to implementation, strategies for overcoming these barriers, and best practices for addressing the sexual health concerns of breast cancer survivors. Methods A systematic literature included peer-reviewed articles from the last five years, using databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL. Search terms included “breast cancer,” “sexual dysfunction,” “oncology practice,” and “integrating sexual health.” Inclusion criteria required that articles discuss sexual health in breast cancer patients, with a focus on intervention strategies, barriers, and best practices in oncology care settings. Results The literature review revealed several barriers to integrating sexual health into breast cancer practices, including limited provider training, time constraints, and discomfort in discussing sexual health topics. Only 25% of the studies reviewed reported successful integration of sexual health interventions, such as counseling or referrals to sexual health specialists. However, these interventions led to significant improvements in patients’ quality of life, with statistically significant reductions in sexual dysfunction symptoms (p < 0.05). Most providers acknowledged the importance of sexual health but cited a lack of formal training and institutional support as primary barriers. Survivors highlighted the need for open communication and early intervention, with many expressing frustration that their sexual health concerns were ignored during treatment. Conclusions Integrating sexual health into breast cancer practices is both necessary and feasible, but significant barriers must be addressed. This study emphasizes the need for enhanced provider training, institutional support, and the development of standardized protocols. Future research should focus on developing comprehensive sexual health programs that can be easily implemented in oncology settings. Disclosure No.
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 | 0.012 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".