Comparing virtual and in-person training for intracavernosal injection therapy in a multidisciplinary sexual health clinic within a prostate cancer survivorship program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Sexual Health Clinic (SHC) offered by the Prostate Cancer Supportive Care (PCSC) Program delivers sexual health therapies for prostate cancer (PCa) patients and their partners. Since April 2020, training for using intracavernosal injections (ICI) to treat erectile dysfunction (ED) has been offered either in-person or by virtual appointments. This study's primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of virtual compared to in-person ICI training by analyzing clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within each group. METHODS: This is a retrospective, ethics-approved chart review of all patients who received ICI training between January 2019 and April 2023. PROs collected were obtained prospectively during routine clinical care. Outcomes, including PROs, satisfaction, and adverse events, were measured using surveys and validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Over four years, 74 patients received ICI training, 54 virtually and 24 in-person. Each group's demographics are similar with respect to age, education level, ethnicity, and partner information. Most patients had not attempted ICI before enrolling in the SHC and were not satisfied with other therapeutic options to treat their ED. Adherence was high in both groups. Virtual and in-person ICI teaching was similar with respect to clinical outcomes and satisfaction. Overall satisfaction was low in both groups. The frequency of adverse events was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, clinical outcomes with ICI training in the virtual format do not appear to differ from those completed in person. Larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".