Are Depressive Symptoms and Attachment Styles Associated with Observed and Perceived Partner Responsiveness in Couples Coping With Genito-Pelvic Pain ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partner responsiveness is thought to facilitate relationship adjustment in couples coping with genito-pelvic pain, such as provoked vestibulodynia (PVD). Recent studies suggest that attachment and depressive symptoms may act as a filter in the perception of partner responsiveness, and a barrier to the capacity of being responsive to a partner. Given studies suggesting higher depressive symptoms and relationship insecurities in women experiencing genito-pelvic pain compared to controls, investigating the role of these factors in partner responsiveness may help couples improve their wellbeing in the challenging context of PVD. The aim of this study was to examine the associations between depressive symptoms, attachment, and perceived and observed partner responsiveness in 50 couples coping with PVD. Participants took part in a videotaped discussion and completed self-report measures of depressive symptoms, attachment, and perceived partner responsiveness. Based on the actor-partner interdependence model, results indicated that when women and partners reported greater depressive symptoms and anxious attachment, they perceived each other as being less responsive. When partners experienced greater depressive symptoms, women and partners were rated, by a trained observer, as being less responsive to each other. Targeting depressive symptoms and relationship insecurity in couple therapy could increase responsiveness in couples coping with PVD.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".