Psychosocial Factors Associated With Vulvodynia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We set out to identify the psychosocial factors associated with vulvodynia and the effects on sexuality, mental health, and quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, LILACS, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO were searched in August 2023. Two authors selected and extracted the data independently. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Observational Studies. To rank the strength of evidence, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach was utilized. RESULTS: A total of 3,182 articles were identified. Twenty-two observational studies (8 cohorts and 14 case-controls) met the eligibility criteria and were included, comprising 2,624 patients. Vulvodynia has been associated with psychological factors (anxiety and depression) and social factors (childhood exposure to physical and sexual abuse, posttraumatic stress, and domestic abuse). Concerning sexual function, the most frequent outcomes were dyspareunia and sexual dysfunction. Only one study assessed quality of life, which showed that women with chronic vulvar pain had greater difficulty performing physical activities and experienced negative moods and feelings. The assessment of the risk of bias showed that the average quality of studies was good to excellent. However, the studies failed to select the nonexposed cohort or control group to describe the results, and often, the study population was rather small, which made it impossible to carry out a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of evidence for the associations between anxiety and depression, vulvodynia, and sexual functioning suggests that combating these factors could improve overall quality of life in vulvodynia patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".