MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377968603 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad061.077

(081) The Psychosocial Barriers Associated with Vulvodynia and Vestibulodynia

2023· article· en· W4377968603 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jenny Niedenfuehr, Lindsey King, Mary Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialVulvodyniaPsychologyCINAHLClinical psychologyDistressSensation seekingSexual abusePsychiatryMedicinePoison controlPersonalityPelvic painSuicide preventionPsychological interventionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction At least 8-16% of people with a vulva are affected by generalized vulvodynia and vestibulodynia. These conditions impact interpersonal relationships, individual behaviors, and the psychological health of couples and individuals. Recent reviews suggest there is no comprehensive understanding on how psychosocial factors impact patients with these conditions. Objective The aim of this review is to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize vulvodynia and vestibulodynia research regarding psychosocial barriers present in the literature from 2012-2022 in the United States and Canada. In addition to psychosocial barriers, structural determinants and environmental barriers were included to comprehensively evaluate all aspects. Methods We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, APA PsychInfo, and Academic Search Premier to retrieve eligible journal articles in March of 2022. A search string of key terms and subject headings including Medical Subject Headings were used systematically to search these databases. The reference list was reviewed with an additional reviewer to reduce bias. Results A total of 671 papers were discovered and narrowed down to 74 papers that explored at least one psychosocial barrier for patients or providers in the United States and Canada. The findings of the literature search revealed the various psychosocial barriers that patients commonly face such as pain, anxiety, depression, catastrophization, fear, lack of self-efficacy, low desire and arousal, negative body image, stigma, distress, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), 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 also adversely impacted individuals with vulvodynia. Conclusions This review serves to educate and inform providers and physicians of the unique barriers that patients experience when navigating health care services and treatments for vulvodynia and vestibulodynia. More research is needed to understand and better educate patients and providers on vulvar pain conditions to improve outcomes. Disclosure No

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.002

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207