MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1962139432 · doi:10.1111/jsm.12484

Sexual Function, Relationship Adjustment, and the Relational Impact of Pain in Male Partners of Women with Provoked Vulvar Pain

2014· article· en· W1962139432 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSexual functionHuman sexualityPsychologyClinical psychologyContext (archaeology)Rating scaleSexual dysfunctionSexual relationshipErectile dysfunctionSexual functioningDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Despite the impact of provoked vulvar pain on women's sexuality and the partnered sexual context in which the pain typically occurs, partners have not been included widely in research. AIMS: To examine sexual and relationship functioning of male partners of women with provoked vulvar pain symptoms using a controlled design and to assess the impact of the pain on their relationship. METHODS: Fifty male pain partners and 56 male controls completed questionnaires to assess sexual communication, sexual functioning/satisfaction, sexual esteem, relationship adjustment, and psychological health. Participants also completed numeric rating scales to assess the importance of sex to them and the extent to which they felt their relationship matched a satisfying relationship. To assess the relational impact of vulvar pain, pain partners were asked to indicate whether the pain had impacted their relationship, and, if yes, rated this impact. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcome measures included the Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale, the International Index of Erectile Function, the Sexuality Scale, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and numeric rating scales. RESULTS: Pain partners reported significantly poorer sexual communication and erectile function and less sexual satisfaction compared with controls. They also reported significantly less affectional expression within their relationships and were more likely than controls to report a discrepancy between their relationship and their idea of a satisfying relationship. Almost 73% (n = 32/44) of pain partners reported a negative relational impact of vulvar pain. No significant differences in sexual desire, orgasmic function, sexual esteem, relationship satisfaction and consensus, psychological health, or importance of sex were found between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Provoked vulvar pain partners appear negatively impacted with regard to some sexual and physical aspects of their relationship. As one of the few controlled studies to investigate partner functioning in the context of provoked vulvar pain, this study has future research implications and supports the involvement of partners in treatment.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.267 · 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