Vaginal Dryness: A Comparison of Prevalence and Interventions in 11 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is limited research comparing cross-cultural differences in women's experiences of vaginal dryness. AIM: To examine international differences in the prevalence of vaginal dryness, the degree to which it is experienced as problematic or bothersome, the use of lubricants to alleviate it, and women's discussion of this problem with physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaire measuring the level of vaginal dryness and degree to which it is perceived as bothersome. METHODS: The Global Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Practices was administered to 6,725 women from 11 countries: UK, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada, Spain, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and Thailand. RESULTS: Prevalence of self-reported vaginal dryness varied from a minimum of 5.8% in Italy to a maximum of 19.7% in Brazil. The proportion of women with self-reported vaginal dryness who found it very bothersome varied as well (e.g., 5.6% UK, 26.4% Germany). Pain during intercourse ranged from a reported low of 3.6% in Australia to 18.6% in Brazil. Older women (50-65 years) as compared with younger women (18-34 years) reported significantly more vaginal dryness in the UK, Australia, Canada, Italy, Spain, Argentina, and Thailand (P values <0.02). The majority of women under 50 attributed vaginal dryness to inadequate sexual arousal while women over 50 believed it was because of aging or menopause. Cross-culturally, women differed substantially in the likelihood of discussing their sexual life/concerns with a physician. CONCLUSION: Women from different countries differ substantially in their experiences, concerns, and reports of vaginal dryness/sexual pain, as well as their familiarity with personal lubricants as a treatment. Researchers should assess the prevalence and degree of the bother of vaginal dryness in order to make international comparisons of the burden of this condition.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".