The treatment of sexually dysfunctional women without partners: A controlled study of three behavioural group approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background. In the absence of models of therapy for sexual dysfunction in single women, this study drew on approaches that have been shown to be useful with men. This controlled study compared three approaches to the treatment of sexually dysfunctional single women. Method. Forty‐nine sexually dysfunctional women were randomly assigned to treatments focusing on either their sexual dysfunction, their interpersonal problems, a combination of both or a waiting list; 47 completed treatment, and 45 a 1 year follow‐up. Treatment was administered in small groups in 15 weekly sessions and four 6 weekly sessions during the first 6 months of a 1 year follow‐up. Results. No clinically meaningful change was observed during the waiting period. In contrast, a significant and equivalent improvement was observed in all treatment conditions by the end of treatment and was maintained at 6 and 12 month follow‐ups. No significant differences between the treatment conditions were found at any point. Conclusions. Sexual dysfunction in single women responded to treatment by various behavioural group approaches. Clinically, results fell short of the improvements observed in sexually dysfunctional men treated similarly. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".