Online Pelvic Floor Group Education Program for Women With Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder/Genito-Pelvic Dysesthesia: Descriptive Feasibility Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Persistent genital arousal disorder/genito-pelvic dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD) is a highly distressing yet poorly understood condition characterized by persistent genito-pelvic sensations, often described as “genital arousal,” which occur in the absence of sexual desire. PGAD/GPD is associated with significant impairment in psychosocial and daily functioning; however, there are currently no empirically validated treatment algorithms for PGAD/GPD. Pelvic floor physical therapy exercises have been found to be effective at reducing other forms of genito-pelvic discomfort, such as vulvodynia, and may also be beneficial to those experiencing PGAD/GPD. Many individuals with PGAD/GPD report difficulty finding a health care provider who is knowledgeable about PGAD/GPD; therefore, pelvic floor education and exercises in an online format may have the potential to reach more individuals in need. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study examined the feasibility of an online pelvic floor group education program; descriptively assessed outcomes related to distress, discomfort, catastrophizing, and mood; and obtained feedback from participants in order to inform the development of improved online group programs. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Fourteen women with current symptoms of PGAD/GPD attended an online, 8-session pelvic floor group education program. Participants completed questionnaires of symptoms (ie, symptom distress, discomfort) and psychosocial well-being (ie, depression, anxiety, symptom catastrophizing) prior to the group sessions (Time 1), immediately after the final group session (Time 2), and 6 months following the final group session (Time 3). Participants also completed an anonymous feedback questionnaire immediately following the group program. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Overall, participants who attended a larger number of the group sessions (&gt;5 sessions, n=7) appeared to report lower baseline (Time 1) symptoms and psychosocial impairment than those who attended fewer sessions (&lt;5 sessions, n=7). A pattern of small improvements was seen following the group sessions on symptom and psychosocial outcomes. In the feedback questionnaire, breathing and relaxation exercises were described to be the most helpful home practice exercises, and participants rated sessions on (1) the relationship between emotions and PGAD/GPD symptoms and (2) relaxation exercises to be the most helpful. A number of barriers to participation in the group program were also identified, including comorbid health concerns and lack of personal time to complete the program/exercises. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Online interventions provide an opportunity to reach international participants who may otherwise struggle to access a knowledgeable provider for their PGAD/GPD symptoms. Addressing barriers may help to increase participants’ abilities to engage in the program. Future programs may seek to integrate a greater focus on relaxation strategies and cognitive-affective strategies for managing PGAD/GPD symptoms. </sec>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".