Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Dalia Peres has a total of 32 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Virtual versus in-person sexual rehabilitation for prostate cancer survivors: a retrospective cohort study comparing the Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (PCRC) and the True North Sexual Health and Rehabilitation eClinic (SHAReClinic)

    by Andrew G Matthew, Steven Guirguis, Taylor Incze, Dalia Peres, Richard J Wassersug, Lauren Walker, John W Robinson, Deborah McLeod, Stacy Elliott, Antionio Finelli, et al.

    Background: Sexual dysfunction is a common and distressing consequence of prostate cancer (PCa) treatment, yet few healthcare institutions offer comprehensive, systematic care, limiting equitable access. Virtual models may improve accessibility and efficiency without sacrificing effectiveness. Aim: To assess whether outcomes in the virtual Sexual Health and Rehabilitation eClinic (SHAReClinic) were comparable to those in the in-person Prostate Cancer Rehabilitation Clinic (PCRC) in improving sexual health outcomes for PCa survivors. Methods: A retrospective cohort chart review was conducted on PCa patients enrolled in either the PCRC or SHAReClinic between September 2017 and August 2018, with data collected 12 months post-treatment. Clinic assignment was based on standard care pathways. Sexual health outcomes were measured using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), Sexual Distress Scale (SDS), Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSIS), and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26). Pro-erectile medication usage was also analyzed. Outcomes: Primary outcomes were SHIM and SDS scores. Secondary outcomes included MSIS, EPIC-26 scores, and pro-erectile medication use as an indicator for adherence and ongoing sexual activity. Results: Among 98 PCa patients (55 PCRC, 43 SHAReClinic), no significant differences were found in SHIM and SDS scores. While partnered PCRC participants reported significantly higher intimacy on the MSIS compared to partnered SHAReClinic participants (P = .042), no significant differences were found on the EPIC-26 sexual health domain. Pro-erectile medication use was similar in both groups. Multivariable analyses showed comparable outcomes in sexual function, distress, and health-related quality of life, except for intimacy. Clinical Implications: SHAReClinic yields comparable outcomes to PCRC and provides an effective, resource-efficient alternative to in-person sexual rehabilitation for PCa patients, particularly in settings with limited accessibility or resources. Strengths and Limitations: This study provides a comprehensive assessment of sexual health outcomes; however, the small sample size limits generalizability. In addition, there was a significant imbalance in treatment modality, with radiation patients represented only in the SHAReClinic cohort. Further research in larger, more diverse populations with longer follow-up is needed to confirm these findings and better understand intimacy differences. Conclusion: SHAReClinic demonstrates outcomes comparable to PCRC in managing sexual dysfunction in PCa patients, offering a viable and accessible option for sexual rehabilitation.

  • Open Access

    Pre-Implementation Assessment of a Sexual Health eClinic in Canadian Oncology Care

    by Taylor Incze, Dalia Peres, Steven Guirguis, Sarah E. Neil-Sztramko, Jackie Bender, Dean Elterman, Shabbir M. H. Alibhai, Antonio Finelli, Phil Vu Bach, Emily Belita, et al.

    Sexual dysfunction is a prevalent and often under-addressed concern among prostate cancer survivors, significantly affecting quality of life for patients and their partners. The True North Sexual Health and Rehabilitation eClinic (SHAReClinic) is a virtual, biopsychosocial intervention developed to improve access to sexual health support for prostate cancer survivors and their partners. This study used a qualitative descriptive design to examine barriers and facilitators influencing the integration of SHAReClinic into oncology care across nine Canadian health care centres. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 knowledge users, including health care providers and institutional leaders. Data were analyzed using a hybrid deductive–inductive thematic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0. Participants described SHAReClinic as a much-needed resource, particularly in the absence of standardized sexual health pathways in oncology care. The virtual format was seen as accessible and well suited to addressing sensitive topics. However, limited funding, lack of institutional support, and workflow integration challenges emerged as primary barriers to implementation. Findings offer practical, theory-informed guidance for integrating SHAReClinic into oncology care and highlight key considerations for developing sustainable and scalable survivorship care models.