An Attachment Perspective on Partner Responses to Genito-pelvic Pain and Their Associations with Relationship and Sexual Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although facilitative and negative partner responses are known to impact couples' adaptation to provoked vestibulodynia (PVD), a chronic genito-pelvic pain condition, it is still unknown what leads individuals to adopt or perceive such adaptative or detrimental behaviors. Attachment influences sexual and relationship adjustment, emotional reactivity and perceived support in romantic relationships, and as such could be associated with partner responses. This study aimed at examining the mediating role of facilitative and negative partner responses in the associations between attachment and relationship and sexual adjustment in 125 couples coping with PVD. Couples completed self-report questionnaires on attachment, partner responses, sexual satisfaction and distress, and relationship satisfaction. Results indicated that partners' attachment avoidance was negatively associated with facilitative partner-reported responses, which in turn was associated with partners' sexual and relationship satisfaction. Attachment anxiety in women and partners was associated with greater women-perceived negative partner responses, which in turn was associated with women's and partners' greater sexual distress and lower sexual satisfaction, and women's lower relationship satisfaction. Partners' greater attachment anxiety was also associated with greater partner-reported facilitative responses, which was associated with partners' lower and women's greater relationship satisfaction. Assessing attachment orientations may help clinicians better understand couples' dyadic coping.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".