Multidisciplinary Treatment for Provoked Vestibulodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary treatment programs for provoked vestibulodynia (PVD) are recommended, yet few have been evaluated. This study examined women's symptom trajectories over time, as well as baseline demographic, psychosocial and pain characteristics as predictors/ moderators of sexual pain and distress following treatment at a clinic using multidisciplinary concurrent methods. We also examined the impact of baseline variables on the probability of having low sexual distress scores following treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women attending a multidisciplinary treatment program for PVD were invited to complete questionnaires before, following, and at 6 and 18 months after program completion. Questionnaires included the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Painful Intercourse Self-Efficacy Scale (PISES), and Pain Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ). Linear mixed-effects models evaluated the FSDS and FSFI pain subscale as criterion variables, and the other baseline variables as predictors and moderators. RESULTS: Significant improvements in sexual distress and pain were observed over time. No significant moderators were identified, but higher baseline levels of FSFI desire and arousal predicted greater improvements in sexual distress. Similarly, higher baseline levels of desire predicted greater improvements in pain. Among women distressed at baseline and with 6 month FSDS scores, 25% (n=35) were no longer sexually distressed at 6 months; higher baseline levels of desire were associated with greater probability of having low sexual distress at 6 months. DISCUSSION: Although global improvements were observed, women with poorer baseline sexual functioning were less likely to improve after multidisciplinary treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".