MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

To Lube or Not to Lube: Experiences and Perceptions of Lubricant Use in Women with and Without Dyspareunia

2011· article· en· W1778764186 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLubricantPerceptionMedicinePsychologyEngineeringMechanical engineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it