Review of the Literature on the Psychoemotional Reality of Women with Vulvodynia: Difficulties Met and Strategies Developed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within the past three decades, increased attention has been placed on the study of vulvodynia -- an unexplained chronic vulvular discomfort felt without any related pathology. In addition to its physical implications, vulvodynia has a psychosocial dimension. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current article is to present a review of the literature on the psychoemotional reality of women with vulvodynia. METHOD: A systematic literature review was conducted in the main social sciences databases, such as Dissertation Abstracts, Current Contents and PsycINFO. RESULTS: Although some discrepancies were found in study results, the review of the literature revealed that women with vulvodynia are often confronted with identity and psychological difficulties, which are, in turn, influenced by social standards regarding sexuality and femininity. To cope with these difficulties, women develop different strategies to decrease the stress related to pain and enhance their psychological well-being. CONCLUSION: The psychological and relational difficulties experienced by women with vulvodynia are not only due to the physical pain but also to the meaning they attribute to it, often influenced by social expectations related to heterosexuality and femininity. Hence, it is important to assist these women by increasing their knowledge on the psychosocial aspects of their experience while taking into account influences from the social context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".