Harmful or Helpful: Perceived Solicitous and Facilitative Partner Responses Are Differentially Associated with Pain and Sexual Satisfaction in Women with Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) is a highly prevalent vulvovaginal pain condition that negatively affects women's emotional, sexual, and relationship well-being. Recent studies have investigated the role of interpersonal variables, including partner responses. AIM: We examined whether solicitous and facilitative partner responses were differentially associated with vulvovaginal pain and sexual satisfaction in women with PVD by examining each predictor while controlling for the other. METHODS: One hundred twenty-one women (M age = 30.60, SD = 10.53) with PVD or self-reported symptoms of PVD completed the solicitous subscale of the spouse response scale of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory, and the facilitative subscale of the Spouse Response Inventory. Participants also completed measures of pain, sexual function, sexual satisfaction, trait anxiety, and avoidance of pain and sexual behaviors (referred to as "avoidance"). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dependent measures were the (i) Pain Rating Index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire with reference to pain during vaginal intercourse and (ii) Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction Scale. RESULTS: Controlling for trait anxiety and avoidance, higher solicitous partner responses were associated with higher vulvovaginal pain intensity (β = 0.20, P = 0.03), and higher facilitative partner responses were associated with lower pain intensity (β = -0.20, P = 0.04). Controlling for sexual function, trait anxiety, and avoidance, higher facilitative partner responses were associated with higher sexual satisfaction (β = 0.15, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that facilitative partner responses may aid in alleviating vulvovaginal pain and improving sexual satisfaction, whereas solicitous partner responses may contribute to greater pain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".