Provoked Vestibulodynia—Women's Experience of Participating in a Multidisciplinary Vulvodynia Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Provoked Vestibulodynia (PVD) is the most common cause of pain with intercourse that affects reproductively aged women. The treatment outcome literature suggests that existing treatments, when administered individually, may have only limited benefits for improving pain, and that multidisciplinary approaches may be more effective for reducing pain and pain-associated distress. A program that offers education, group cognitive behavioral therapy, pelvic floor physiotherapy, and medical appointments was developed and implemented at our hospital site. AIM: To explore the experiences of women who participated in the Multidisciplinary Vulvodynia Program (MVP) in order to identify the perceived benefits of this program. METHODS: Qualitative retrospective study. A semi-structured interview format was used to interview graduates of the MVP. Nineteen women, mean age 30.8 (20-54 years), participated in a one-on-one in-depth interview with a trained interviewer. The key question asked was "What has been the impact of the mvp on your life?" interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed for major themes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Content analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: Five main themes emerged and included: increased knowledge, gained tools/skills, perceived improved mood/psychological well-being, a sense of validation and support, and an enhanced sense of empowerment. CONCLUSION: Overall, a multidisciplinary vulvodynia program was perceived as being beneficial for women with PVD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".