To Lube or Not to Lube: Experiences and Perceptions of Lubricant Use in Women with and Without Dyspareunia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are few studies examining the relationship between lubricant use and sexual functioning, and no studies have examined this relationship in women with dyspareunia. Vaginal dryness is a prevalent complaint among women of all ages. There is an association between vaginal dryness and painful intercourse; therefore, women with dyspareunia represent a particularly relevant sample of women in which to investigate lubricant use. AIM: The aim of this study was to examine differences between women with and without dyspareunia in self-reported natural lubrication and attitudes toward and use of personal lubricants. METHODS: Respondents completed an online survey including questions on demographics, gynecological/medical history, sexual functioning, and lubricant use and attitudes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures used were the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and questions regarding attitudes toward and use of lubricants. RESULTS: Controls scored higher on the lubrication subscale of the FSFI than women with dyspareunia (P < 0.001). Women with dyspareunia reported greater frequency of lubricant use during sexual activity over the last year (P < 0.01). They were also more likely to use lubricant prior to penetration (P < 0.05). The most common use for controls was to enhance sexual experiences. This was also a common answer for women with dyspareunia; however, in this group, the most common reason was to reduce/alleviate pain. Lubricants were rated as less effective among women with dyspareunia vs. controls across all reported reasons for use. Nevertheless, lubricant use was still rated as being moderately effective in alleviating pain for women with dyspareunia. CONCLUSIONS: Women with dyspareunia have more difficulty with natural lubrication; it is consequently not surprising that they reported using lubricant more frequently than control women. Women with dyspareunia reported using lubricants more often than controls to try to prevent or alleviate pain and reported this as being a moderately effective strategy, suggesting that it may be a useful tool for some women with dyspareunia.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".