Impact of Partner’s Sexual and Relationship Well-Being on Pain Intensity and Pain Catastrophizing in Women with Genital Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual and relationship well-being play a major role in the management of pain conditions, namely in women experiencing genital pain. Research has shown that couple’s interactions seem to influence sexual and relationship satisfaction, as well as sexual functioning, for both women with genital pain and their partners. However, the partner’s contribution to understanding and treating pain symptoms is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the role of several partner’s sexual and relationship variables in explaining pain intensity and pain catastrophizing in women with genital pain, above and beyond women’s variables. Thirty women (M age = 27.97; SD = 6.65) with self-reported genital pain and their partners (M age = 30.4; SD = 7.91) completed an online survey. Both members of the couple filled the Global Measure of Sexual Satisfaction and the Global Measure of Relationship Satisfaction. Sexual functioning was measured with the Female Sexual Function Index and the International Index of Erectile Function. Women also completed the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Descriptive and clinical data were assessed by the General Introductory Questionnaire for Sexual Pain. Hierarchical multiple regressions were computed to test the hypotheses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".