Mindfulness and Sex Education for Sexual Dysfunction in Breast Cancer Survivors: Mediators and Moderators of Treatment Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
= 116, mean age = 49.9 ± 9.5) were randomized to group and completed measures before, immediately after, and 6 months after treatment. Mediators assessed were changes in depression, chronic pain acceptance, pain catastrophizing, and trait mindfulness. Potential moderators included age, treatment expectations, baseline mental health, cancer treatment duration, use of chemotherapy, and adjuvant endocrine therapy. Longitudinal mediation and moderation were assessed using linear mixed models. Increases in pain acceptance mediated improvements in sexual desire and reductions in both sexual distress and vaginal pain. Decreases in pain catastrophizing mediated improvements in sexual distress. Higher expectations for treatment led to greater reductions in sexual distress. Those with low baseline anxiety showed greater improvements in desire and distress. Low baseline depression predicted greater improvements in desire, but only in the STEP arm. Older STEP participants improved significantly more than younger STEP participants. Cancer-related treatment variables, and the impact of adjuvant endocrine therapy, had differential effects on outcomes based on the treatment arm of the study. In conclusion, treatments aimed at improving pain acceptance and pain catastrophizing are likely to promote improvements in sexual health among BrCa survivors, and factoring in patients' expectations about treatment improvements, depression and anxiety, age, duration of cancer treatment, chemotherapy, and adjuvant hormonal therapy may help to guide treatment recommendations for 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".