A Dyadic Perspective on Childhood Maltreatment for Women With Provoked Vestibulodynia and Their Partners: Associations With Pain and Sexual and Psychosocial Functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood maltreatment is robustly associated with adult-onset vulvodynia, a common form of female genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder. However, little is known about the impact of childhood maltreatment on current sexual, psychological, and relationship adaptation for couples with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD). This study examined the associations between childhood maltreatment and sexual and psychosocial functioning and pain in women with PVD, the most common subtype of vulvodynia, and their partners. A total of 49 couples (Mage women = 27.80, SD = 6.05; Mage men = 30.04; SD = 6.48) with PVD completed the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), as well as measures of sexual functioning, couple satisfaction, and anxiety. Women also reported on their pain during intercourse. Analyses were guided by the actor–partner interdependence model. Women’s higher reports of childhood maltreatment were associated with their lower sexual functioning and higher anxiety. Partners’ higher reports of childhood maltreatment were associated with their lower sexual functioning, lower couple satisfaction, and higher anxiety, as well as women’s lower couple satisfaction and higher anxiety. Both women’s and partners’ higher reports of childhood maltreatment were associated with higher affective pain for women. Findings suggest childhood maltreatment experienced by women with PVD and their partners should be considered as part of treatment planning.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".