Fear Avoidance and Self-efficacy in Relation to Pain and Sexual Impairment in Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Provoked vestibulodynia is believed to be the most frequent cause of vulvodynia in women of childbearing age, with prevalence rates of up to 12% in the general population. Despite this high prevalence and the fact that vestibulodynia impacts negatively on quality of life, in particular sexual functioning, there has been a paucity of sound research to elucidate the condition's etiology. More specifically, few studies have focused on the role of psychologic factors in the experience of vulvo-vaginal pain and associated sexual impairment. OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to determine the extent to which fear avoidance variables (catastrophizing, anxiety, fear of pain, hypervigilance) and self-efficacy differentially influenced changes in levels of induced and intercourse pain and also associated sexual dysfunction in these women. METHODS: Data were obtained from 75 vestibulodynia participants who completed a gynecologic examination, structured interview, and standardized questionnaires. RESULTS: The results of regression analyses revealed that higher catastrophizing, fear of pain, and hypervigilance in addition to lower self-efficacy together accounted for 15% of the variation in increased intercourse pain intensity. Among these, only catastrophizing contributed unique variance to intercourse pain. Results also showed that higher state anxiety and fear of pain (escape/avoidance) and also lower self-efficacy explained 22% of the variation in women's sexual impairment. However, only self-efficacy was found to be an independent correlate of sexual impairment. CONCLUSION: Findings support a theoretical model of vestibulodynia as a pain disorder influenced among others by cognitive and affective factors.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".