Mediators of change in cognitive-behavioral couple therapy for genito-pelvic pain: Results of a randomized clinical trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A novel cognitive-behavioral couple therapy (CBCT) has shown efficacy for treating provoked vestibulodynia (PVD), the most common type of genito-pelvic pain, in comparison to topical lidocaine. However, mechanisms of therapeutic change have not been determined. We examined women's and partners' pain self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing as mediators of change in CBCT, using topical lidocaine as a control group. METHOD: 108 couples coping with PVD were randomized to 12-week CBCT or topical lidocaine and assessed at pre-treatment, post-treatment, and six-month follow-up. Dyadic mediation analyses were conducted. RESULTS: CBCT was not more effective in increasing pain self-efficacy than topical lidocaine, so this mediator was discarded. In women, decreases in pain catastrophizing at post-treatment mediated improvement in pain intensity, sexual distress, and sexual function. In partners, decreases in pain catastrophizing at post-treatment mediated improvement in sexual function. Partners' decreases in pain catastrophizing also mediated reductions in women's sexual distress. CONCLUSIONS: Pain catastrophizing may be a mediator specific to CBCT for PVD, explaining improvements in pain and sexuality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| 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".