A patient-oriented workshop on sexual pain and endometriosis: Preliminary evidence for improvements in painful intercourse self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endometriosis-associated dyspareunia can persist after surgical interventions, requiring multidisciplinary treatment including pain education. This study explored the effectiveness of a one-day workshop for improving knowledge, behavioural changes, and self-efficacy. Pre-test post-test study of people who attended a workshop on dyspareunia and endometriosis. A pre- and immediately post-workshop questionnaire was used to evaluate the outcomes. A subsection of the Painful Intercourse Self-Efficacy questionnaire was used to assess self-efficacy. Sixteen people completed both the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires, 12 of which had endometriosis. There were improvements in knowledge on the prevalence, causes and treatments of dyspareunia in endometriosis after the workshop. All participants with endometriosis said “yes” or “maybe” to discussing what they learned with their healthcare provider. Comparing the self-efficacy of the 12 participants with endometriosis between pre- and post-workshop, there was a significant increase in certainty that they could: continue most of their sexual activities (Cohen's d = 0.61, P = 0.007); keep dyspareunia from interfering with their relationship (Cohen's d = 0.77, P = 0.023); make small-to-moderate reductions (Cohen's d = 0.48, P = 0.021) and large reductions (Cohen's d = 0.56, P = 0.034) in their dyspareunia by using non-surgical methods. Disseminating information about dyspareunia at a one-day workshop was associated with improved knowledge and self-efficacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".