The unmet needs of gay and bisexual men following prostate cancer treatment: an integrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence has highlighted the unmet physical and psychological needs of men throughout all stages of prostate cancer (PCa); however, much of the focus has been on heterosexual men. Research shows that gay and bisexual men (GBM) have unique and unaddressed healthcare needs. The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature by exploring the needs of GBM following their treatment for prostate cancer. METHODS: An integrative literature review sought qualitative and quantitative primary research from five databases (British Nursing Database, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science). A keyword search was employed, and each database was systematically searched. A thematic analysis was undertaken of relevant literature. RESULTS: The evidence shows that GBM have unmet information, support, and sexual needs. GBM with PCa frequently reported a lack of tailored information about how treatment affected their sexual health. Many felt isolated as mainstream PCa support groups catered to heterosexual men. Some GBM felt unsupported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) who seemed to overlook their unique needs. CONCLUSIONS: GBM with PCa faces distinct challenges regarding sexual health, information access, social support, and interactions with HCPs. A more inclusive approach to healthcare practices, support services, and clinical care for GBM is required. Implications for cancer survivors HCPs should caution GBM about the potential sexual dysfunction post-treatment and avoid making heteronormative assumptions. Tailored information catered to GBM should be delivered, such as signposting to support groups specifically for GBM.
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".