Sexual dysfunction care needs of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men living with <scp>HIV</scp> in Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sexual dysfunction (SD) is common among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) with HIV, yet little is known about their views on SD care. We explored these views to inform patient-centred SD care to improve care delivery and sexual health outcomes. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2024 with 31 Montreal-based GBM with HIV who experienced SD in the last 5 years (reduced libido, erectile dysfunction, premature/delayed ejaculation and/or pain during sex), covering SD care experiences and preferences. Thematic analysis was applied to interview transcripts. RESULTS: Participants mostly reported reduced libido (83.9%) and erectile dysfunction (ED(80.6%), with over half (58.0%) experiencing multiple SDs concurrently. Themes regarding SD care experiences were (1) costs and benefits of ED medication, (2) limited benefits of testosterone replacement therapy, (3) mixed views on talk therapy (and a preference for group therapy), and (4) not seeking care due to questions of SD definition and normalcy. SD care preferences concerned both provider characteristics (identity, approach to patients and expertise) and care delivery (information provision, involvement and respect and access to diverse resources). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the approach to SD care sought (medication or talk therapy), participants experienced limited success. For some, doubts about the severity of their SD impeded help-seeking. SD care preferences for the provider (e.g., expertise) and care provided (e.g., information, patient involvement) offer paths to more patient-centred 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".