Seeking help for menstrual pain during adolescence: A mixed-methods retrospective survey of treatment experiences and preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Menstrual pain can significantly impact adolescents' well-being and functioning. Despite the prevalence of adolescent menstrual pain, information about adolescents' experiences seeking treatment is limited. OBJECTIVES: We examined retrospective reports of help-seeking in adolescence among menstruators to better understand perceptions and experiences of interacting with the healthcare system due to menstrual pain. DESIGN: This study used an embedded mixed-methods design in which the qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently. METHODS: Young adults aged 18-25 who experienced menstrual pain in adolescence completed an online, mixed-methods survey of help-seeking experiences. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: = 21.78 years), 41% sought treatment for menstrual pain in adolescence and of these 43% found the treatments they were offered ineffective. Three themes were generated related to why treatment was perceived as unsuitable: "Side effects and risks of pharmacological treatment," "treatment not tailored to the individual," and "treatment seen as a band-aid solution." Participants perceived the treatment options as limited and likely not addressing the underlying cause of their pain. Four themes were generated related to perceived improvements to treatment seeking. Participants recommended that healthcare providers: "Go beyond contraceptives," "share and demonstrate expertise," "investigate menstrual pain," and "listen and do not dismiss." Participants reported that having more information, feeling validated, and understanding treatment recommendations would improve their experience. CONCLUSION: Participants perceived that their menstrual pain-related treatment needs were unmet in adolescence, despite being offered treatments that align with treatment guidelines for adolescent menstrual pain. Findings suggest that improving explanations about treatment provided to youth, along with improving communication and menstrual education, may lead to more optimal help-seeking experiences among adolescents.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".