MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399793313 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae054.030

(031) PAIN MITIGATION STRATEGIES AMONG FEMALES EXPERIENCING PAINFUL INTERCOURSE WHILE ATTEMPTING PREGNANCY

2024· article· en· W4399793313 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason E. Bond, Rory A. Fisher, Katharine O. White, Lauren A. Wise

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyMedicineContext (archaeology)CohortReproductive healthSexual intercourseFamily medicinePhysical therapyPopulationEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Pain during intercourse is a relatively common experience among reproductive-aged females but is often not discussed with healthcare providers. In the context of attempting pregnancy, people may find themselves unable to abstain from painful intercourse and so may attempt to mitigate their pain. Despite this connection, research evaluating experiences of painful intercourse among pregnancy planners is sparse. Objective To characterize pain mitigation strategies among females attempting pregnancy experiencing painful intercourse. Methods We used data from Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO), an online preconception cohort study of females residing in the United States or Canada and actively attempting a pregnancy with a male partner without the use of assisted reproductive technology (2020-2023). To be eligible for this study, participants must have completed the optional Sexual Health and Well-Being Study within one year of cohort enrollment and before reporting a pregnancy (N=1,545). Participants were asked whether they experienced any pain during vaginal penetration in the past 4 weeks. Response options were five frequency options ranging from ‘Never or rarely’ to ‘Almost always or always.’ Those who responded that they experienced pain more frequently than ‘Never or rarely’ were categorized as experiencing any painful penetration and asked to rate the usual intensity of the pain on a scale of 1 to 10 and if they tried any strategies to mitigate the pain. For each reported strategy, participants were asked to rank its perceived efficacy at mitigating their pain on a scale of 1 ‘Never effective’ to 5 ‘Always Effective.’ Response options of ‘Often effective’ or ‘Always effective’ were grouped for descriptive analysis. Strategy effectiveness was also evaluated stratified by high pain (usual intensity ≥5) versus not high pain. Results Four-hundred and eighty participants (31%) reported experiencing any painful penetration in the past 4 weeks. The mean pain intensity was 3.6 (standard deviation [sd]=1.7). The most common reported strategies to try to mitigate pain were changing sexual positions (66%), using lubricant (59%), trying to finish intercourse quickly (49%), having an orgasm before penetration (32%) and only allowing partial vaginal penetration by the penis (30%). The most effective strategy was lubricant use, with 72% of participants reporting that strategy to be often or always effective, followed by partial penetration (66%), changing position (64%), and orgasm (62%). The least effective strategy was trying to finish quickly, with only 30% of participants saying that was often or always effective. The effectiveness of a given strategy changed with pain intensity, with all strategies being less likely to be often or always effective among those with higher pain intensity. Conclusions Among a sample of pregnancy planners, strategies to mitigate painful penetration varied. In general, most strategies were perceived as being often or always effective at mitigating pain, though less so for people with more intense pain. Because abstaining from painful intercourse is not always possible in the context of a desired pregnancy, understanding strategies that people use to mitigate pain can help providers who may wish to support patients in this context. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: LAW serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Inc.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207