MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405224815 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae161.128

(158) A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE EFFICACY OF GROUP PSYCHOTHERAPIES FOR THE TREATMENT OF FEMALE SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION

2024· review· en· W4405224815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fernanda Rafaela Cabral Bonato, Adriane Mussi, Bruna Gund, Camila Marina Nery Pellizzer, Luiza Ferrario Genez, R Gobbi, Neide Pereira Cardoso

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychotherapistPsychologySexual dysfunctionClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Some studies suggest the use of group psychotherapy (GP) as an effective treatment for female sexual dysfunctions (FSDs). GP allows a rich exchange of experiences that would not be achieved through individual care. This treatment modality also gives people in vulnerable situations the opportunity for low-cost psychotherapy. Although GP are indicated in multiple fields of health for the treatment of different pathologies, no literature reviews have investigated the effects of GP for the treatment of FSDs or compared the effectiveness of group interventions with other types of interventions (e.g., medication or individual psychotherapy). Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of GP in the treatment of FSDs. The secondary goals are to assess (1) which are the main FSDs treated through GP; (2) the main GP approaches and (3) the main countries where GP was used. Methods A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Using six scientific databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Virtual Health Library, PsycINFO, Embase, and Scopus. The eligibility criteria were studies that included women ≥18 years old with an established diagnosis of any FSD or any level of sexual dysfunction (SD); at least one group received GP; the intervention was delivered by health professionals; have comparison of GP with itself (pre-post) or comparison of GP with any other type of treatment; the study was a randomized (RCT) or non-randomized (NRCT) controlled trial; and studies that had some type of statistical evidence of efficacy (e.g., Cohen’s d,) or sufficient data to perform effect size calculation of the intervention. Results Initially, 615 articles were found, but only 14 studies remained after the application of the criteria. The included articles spanned a wide time frame, from 1978 to 2022. The majority (n = 10) were published between 2014 and 2022. Most of the studies were RCTs (n = 8). Almost half (n = 6) of the papers were conducted in Canada, followed by Iran, the USA, the Netherlands, and Brazil, with two studies in each country. Sexual function (SF) was the most analyzed (n = 10), followed by pain during intercourse (n = 4). Vulvar pain and sexual interest/arousal disorder were assessed by three studies. Our findings suggest that for SF enhancement, GCBT and MBGT are the most used GP, with robust evidence of effectiveness. Other psychological approaches based on CBT, such as bibliotherapy, have also shown moderate effect sizes. Conclusions Our findings corroborate previous studies which suggest that the use of CBT and MBCT for the treatment of FSDs reduces anxiety levels, improving the positive attitude toward sexual health and, consequently. GCBT and MBGT have both shown medium to large effect sizes in improving female sexual function. Medium to large effect sizes were also found during the treatment of vulvar pain and pain during intercourse with GCBT. Only MGGT showed a significant effect size for low desire treatment. MBGT was the most used and effective intervention for the treatment of sexual interest/arousal disorder. 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 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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207