MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4363679137 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad035

A scoping review: the psychosocial barriers that exist for people with vulvodynia

2023· article· en· W4363679137 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulvodyniaPsychosocialPsycINFOPsychologyClinical psychologyCINAHLDistressMEDLINEPsychiatryMedicinePelvic painPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Vulvodynia, including generalized vulvodynia and vestibulodynia, affects at least 8% to 16% of people with a vulva and may have a negative impact on one's quality of life, psychological health, interpersonal relationships, and individual behaviors. AIM: The aim of this scoping review is to synthesize and analyze the emerging literature of vulvodynia research while determining what psychosocial barriers exist for people with vulvodynia. METHODS: A rigorous literature search was completed in 6 databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, APA PsycInfo, and Academic Search Premier. Key terms and subject headings, including Medical Subject Headings, were used to systematically search these databases. Two reviewers were utilized to assess the reference list and reduce bias. OUTCOMES: A total of 671 articles were discovered during the search, which was narrowed down to 73 that included at least 1 psychosocial barrier that patients experience in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: The findings of the literature search revealed the various psychosocial barriers that patients commonly face: pain, anxiety, depression, catastrophization, fear, lack of self-efficacy, low desire and arousal, negative body image, stigma, distress, posttraumatic stress disorder, child maltreatment and abuse, mistrust, invalidation and isolation, low levels of self-compassion, negative partner support, low relationship satisfaction, lack of physical affection, emotional regulation, and avoidance and lack of approach goals. In addition to psychosocial barriers, structural determinants and environmental barriers-such as delayed diagnosis, low health literacy, cost, transportation, and racial disparities-adversely affected individuals with vulvodynia. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This review should serve as a guide for researchers, medical providers, and program developers to understand all the barriers that patients may face. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This review comprehensively highlights existing psychological barriers while promoting structural and environmental barriers that people with vulvodynia face. More research and greater emphasis on the underlying physical conditions that contribute to vulvodynia are needed to effectively educate providers and patients on vulvar pain conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights the numerous barriers faced by patients with vulvodynia and serves to improve education for patients and providers to achieve earlier diagnoses and better patient outcomes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it