Impact of male partner responses on sexual function in women with vulvodynia and their partners: A dyadic daily experience study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of research investigating the role of interpersonal variables in vulvodynia--a prevalent, chronic, vulvo-vaginal pain condition that negatively affects many aspects of women's sexual health, emotional well-being and intimate relationships. Cross-sectional studies have shown that male partner responses to painful intercourse are associated with pain and sexual satisfaction in women with vulvodynia. Partner responses can be solicitous (attention and sympathy), negative (hostility and frustration), and facilitative (encouragement of adaptive coping). No research has assessed the influence of daily partner responses in this population. Further, there is limited knowledge regarding the impact of partner responses on sexual function, which is a key measure of impairment in vulvodynia. METHODS: Using daily diaries, 66 women (M age = 27.91, SD = 5.94) diagnosed with vulvodynia and their cohabiting male partners (M age = 30.00, SD = 8.33) reported on male partner responses and sexual function on days when sexual intercourse occurred (M = 6.54, SD = 4.99). Drawing on the Actor-Partner Interdependence model (APIM), a multivariate multilevel modeling approach was adopted. RESULTS: A woman's sexual functioning improved on days when she perceived greater facilitative and lower solicitous and negative male partner responses, and when her male partner reported lower solicitous responses. A man's sexual functioning was poorer on days when he reported greater solicitous and negative responses. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that facilitative male partner responses may improve sexual functioning whereas solicitous and negative responses may be detrimental. Partner responses should be targeted in psychological interventions aimed to improve the sexual functioning of affected 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".