Fear-avoidance and Pelvic Floor Muscle Function are Associated With Pain Intensity in Women With Vulvodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between fear-avoidance variables, pelvic floor muscle (PFM) function, pain intensity in women with provoked vestibulodynia (PVD), as well as the moderator effect of partner support. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of 173 women diagnosed with PVD participated in the study. Fear-avoidance variables were assessed with validated self-administered questionnaires: pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), pain-related fear (Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale), and partner support (Partner Support Questionnaire). Pain intensity was evaluated using a numerical rating scale. PFM function, including maximal strength, speed of contraction, flexibility, and muscle tone, was evaluated with a dynamometric speculum. RESULTS: Pain catastrophizing was significantly associated with pain intensity (β=0.310, P<0.001), partner support (β=0.194, P=0.004), and PFM flexibility (β=-0.255, P<0.001). Fear-avoidance, PFM variables, and partner support explained 28.3% of the variance in pain during intercourse (P<0.001). The addition of PFM was of particular interest as it explained a significant addition of 9% of the variance in pain intensity. Partner support was found to moderate the association between pain intensity and catastrophizing. Among women with high partner support, catastrophizing was not significantly related to pain (b=0.150, P=0.142). When partner support was low, catastrophizing was significantly related to pain (b=0.068, P<0.001). DISCUSSION: Findings of this study support that the symptomatology of PVD can be explained partly by fear-avoidance variables and PFM function. This study supports the significant role of PFM function and its importance in the pathophysiology of PVD. It also sheds light on the role of partner support and its moderating effect on pain catastrophizing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".