MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774323745 · doi:10.3138/cjhs.2017-0019

Vulvodynia attitudes in a sample of Canadian post-graduate medical trainees

2017· article· en· W2774323745 on OpenAlex
Stéphanie C. Boyer, Susan Chamberlain, Caroline F. Pukall

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulvodyniaMedicineSpecialtyFamily medicineHuman sexualityObstetrics and gynaecologyPopulationSexual intercourseComputer-assisted web interviewingYoung adultClinical psychologyGynecologyGerontologyPelvic painPregnancySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it