Standardized Counseling Tool for Returning to Sexual Activity After Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To create a standardized counseling tool for return to sexual activity after pelvic reconstructive surgery. METHODS: An expert panel created an initial counseling tool based on the conceptual framework previously developed in a rigorous qualitative analysis of women's experience of their first sexual encounters after pelvic reconstructive surgery. This instrument was then refined through cognitive patient interviews. Women who had previously undergone reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence and returned to sexual activity were recruited from four clinical sites across the United States and Canada for participation in cognitive interviews. Participants reviewed proposed counseling statements and were asked to describe their meaning, suggest any necessary changes, and rate their importance. Summaries of the ongoing cognitive interviews were periodically presented to the working group for discussion, and the instrument was revised accordingly. Interviews were conducted until no new substantive comments were made. RESULTS: Nineteen cognitive patient interviews were conducted, and three rounds of modifications were made to the initial counseling tool. Modifications included merging multiple counseling statements to avoid redundancy and eliminating statements that were not considered important by patients. Patients consistently rated statements about the safety of resuming intercourse and anticipated discomfort with initial sexual encounters as very important. CONCLUSION: We developed a novel, patient-centered counseling tool for the return to sexual activity after pelvic reconstructive surgery using a previously established conceptual framework and cognitive patient interviews. It addresses an important surgical outcome for patients and offers surgeons a concise, high-value counseling tool.
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 | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".