Daily Associations Between Partner Responses and Sexual and Relationship Satisfaction in Couples Coping with Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Women with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) experience a recurrent vulvo-vaginal pain triggered primarily during sexual intercourse. Although affected couples report adverse effects on their sexual and global romantic relationships, few studies have examined interpersonal factors that may influence their sexual and relationship satisfaction. Cross-sectional studies have shown that greater partner solicitous and negative responses and lower facilitative responses are associated with poorer sexual and relationship satisfaction in women with PVD. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the within-person associations between partner responses to painful intercourse and the sexual and relationship satisfaction of affected couples. METHODS: In a dyadic daily experience study, 69 women (M(age) = 28.46, SD = 6.66) diagnosed with PVD and their cohabitating male partners (M(age) = 30.29, SD = 8.13) reported on male partner responses, as well as sexual and relationship satisfaction on sexual intercourse days (M = 6.81; SD = 5.40) over 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dependent measures were the (i) Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale and (ii) Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction Scale. RESULTS: On sexual intercourse days when women perceived more facilitative partner responses than usual and on days when they perceived lower negative partner responses than usual, they reported higher sexual and relationship satisfaction. On sexual intercourse days when men reported more solicitous responses than usual, both they and their female partners reported lower sexual satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions aimed at improving the day-to-day sexual and relationship satisfaction of couples with PVD should target increasing facilitative and decreasing negative and solicitous partner responses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".