MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377246417 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad060.472

(500) What Do Women Want? Vibrators To Be Prescribed by Their Doctors

2023· article· en· W4377246417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A Dubinskaya, P Shoureshi, K Eilber

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicine and Dermatology Studies History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrator (electronic)TabooMedicineConfidentialityFamily medicineQualitative researchMainstreamPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Traditionally vibrator use has been a taboo topic that is rarely discussed between patient and physician. Nevertheless, the vibrator industry has flourished the past several years with vibrators now available at mainstream retailers. While these devices are readily available to the public, the role of medical professionals in regards to vibrator use and female pelvic health is not well known. Objective The purpose of this study was to describe the interest among women responding to a clinical trial for female sexual wellness and the use of vibrator. Methods We reviewed the responses to a female sexual wellness clinical trial posted on various medical platforms (clinicaltrials.gov, Medscape, Medege, Medpage). Using qualitative content analysis, we reviewed the inquiries made by women interested in participating in the study. Those women who were ineligible for the study due to their geographical location but desired to have an in depth discussion were offered telephone calls. Results A total of 260 emails and 12 voice mails were received from 148 women within a two-week time frame who had inquired about the female sexual wellness study and vibrators. The locations of the respondents included 31 states within the United States and Canada. The average age of the respondents was 60 years, and 62 (42%) of the women worked in the medical field (medical doctors, osteopathic doctors, and registered nurses). Five women (3.3%) received a link about the study from their male partners. The most common conditions that women were hoping to improve with vibrator use in descending order: sexual dysfunction (dyspareunia, desire/libido, orgasm), urinary incontinence, prolapse/pelvic floor, and menopause. Conclusions Our review demonstrated that women are interested in vibrators, particularly in a clinical trial setting, and are seeking to use them for multiple conditions including FSD and pelvic floor disorders. Clinicians should consider discussing vibrator use with patients, as it normalizes vibrator use. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Abbvie, Coloplast, Sprout Pharmaceuticals.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicMedicine and Dermatology Studies HistoryFrench-language works237,207