Does Self-compassion Benefit Couples Coping With Vulvodynia? Associations With Psychological, Sexual, and Relationship Adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Vulvodynia, a chronic vulvovaginal pain condition, has deleterious consequences for the psychological, relational, and sexual well-being of affected women and their partners. Protective factors, which can reduce these negative effects, are increasingly studied in the field of chronic pain. One of these, self-compassion, entails qualities such as kindness toward oneself, and has been associated with better adjustment in individuals with chronic pain. Because many women with vulvodynia have a negative image of themselves in the context of sexuality, self-compassion may be especially relevant for this population. This study aimed to investigate self-compassion among couples coping with vulvodynia and its associations with psychological, sexual, and relationship adjustment, as well as pain during sexual intercourse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were gathered from 48 women diagnosed with provoked vestibulodynia-a subtype of vulvodynia-and their partners, using self-report questionnaires pertaining to anxiety, depression, sexual distress, relationship satisfaction, and pain intensity during sexual intercourse. RESULTS: For both women and their partners, higher levels of self-compassion were associated with their own lower anxiety and depression. When partners reported higher levels of self-compassion, they were more satisfied with their relationship, and both partners and women reported lower sexual distress. No significant association was found for pain during intercourse. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that self-compassion is a promising protective factor in the experience of vulvodynia and associated distress. Interventions aimed at increasing self-compassion could enhance the efficacy of psychological treatments for these women and their partners. Further studies are needed to better understand the correlates of self-compassion among this population.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".