The Vulvodynia Primary Care Toolkit: results of a mixed-method evaluation with community-based family physicians in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers often lack awareness, knowledge, and confidence in managing vulvodynia, which can lead to difficulties with diagnosis and treatment for individuals with the condition. OBJECTIVE: To develop and test an educational online toolkit tailored to supporting community-based primary care providers with diagnosis, treatment, and patient support for vulvodynia. METHODS: A sample of 19 community-based family physicians completed online surveys before and after testing the Vulvodynia Primary Care Toolkit (the toolkit hereafter) in their practice for 6 months. Nine physicians also completed a semi-structured interview to describe their experiences using the toolkit. RESULTS: The toolkit was adopted into clinical care, being used an average of 4.1 times per physician (SD = 2.7) during the test period. The toolkit demonstrated high acceptability, as evidenced by a high level of reported satisfaction with the toolkit and the amount of information it contained. The toolkit increased self-reported knowledge and confidence in diagnosing (P = .003), treating (P < .001), and supporting (P < .001) patients with vulvodynia. Through reflexive thematic analysis, we generated five themes from interview data that represented physicians' experiences: (i) There are facilitators and barriers to toolkit use in practice, (ii) the toolkit is valued by family physicians, (iii) the toolkit is educational, (iv) the toolkit is empowering, and (v) the toolkit improves vulvodynia management and referrals. CONCLUSION: An online educational toolkit tailored to community-based primary care settings supports the management of patients with vulvodynia by family physicians. Our findings lay the foundation for the upscaling of this tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".