Vulvodynia attitudes in a sample of Canadian post-graduate medical trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physicians play a critical role in addressing sexual health in medical practice, including pain during intercourse. Vulvodynia is a prevalent cause of pain, however, related training is limited and variable. In addition, physician attitudes toward pain and sexuality may affect behaviour and therefore patient outcomes. This study's objectives were to: 1) determine whether post-graduate trainees hold more positive attitudes toward women presenting with vulvovaginal pain with (versus without) an identifiable cause; and 2) examine attitudinal predictors of comfort treating vulvodynia and attitudes toward patients with this presentation. Residents in Canadian Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) and Family Medicine (FM) programs participated in an online survey (N=99). Respondents completed questionnaires related to demographics, sexuality-related training, sexual attitudes, and comfort treating and attitudes toward vulvovaginal pain and its symptoms. Residents reported significantly more positive attitudes toward patients with visible pathology versus no identifiable cause for vulvovaginal pain, regardless of medical specialty, p<.001. In OBGYN residents, general comfort discussing sexuality in medical practice significantly predicted comfort treating vulvodynia and its symptoms (p<.001), and attitudes toward women with vulvodynia (p<.05). Demographic, training, and attitudinal variables did not significantly predict vulvodynia outcome measures in FM residents. This study of medical residents identified different attitudes based on vulvovaginal pain presentation, and identified predictors of attitudes and comfort treating vulvodynia in OBGYN residents. Findings suggest pathways by which health care experiences may influence outcomes in this population, and have important implications for resident training.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".