A Systematic Review of Relationship Adjustment and Sexual Satisfaction among Women with Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this article was to conduct a systematic review of the literature examining relationship adjustment and sexual satisfaction among women with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD). Although only a small number of studies have included partners, the literature regarding partner's relationship adjustment and sexual satisfaction was also examined. Relevant articles were identified by a literature search conducted between August 2008 and May 2010. Studies were included if they contained at least one group or subset of participants with PVD or dyspareunia (i.e., painful sexual intercourse), and if they assessed relationship adjustment or sexual satisfaction as a primary outcome measure. Within this review, the methodological quality of 33 studies was systematically rated, and effect sizes were calculated when possible. Methodological type and quality greatly varied across the studies, as did the pain samples included and the outcomes reported. Nevertheless, the results of controlled studies indicate that PVD is associated with decreased sexual satisfaction. The controlled results also suggest, however, that PVD is not necessarily associated with general relationship maladjustment for women and their partners. Future research, using various methodologies, is needed to further understand intimate relationships among women with PVD and the impact that this condition may have on couples.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".