MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410504850 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf085

Cognitive behavioural therapy for sexual concerns during menopause: evaluation of a four session protocol

2025· article· en· W4410504850 on OpenAlexafffund
Sheryl M. Green, Melissa Furtado, Alison K. Shea, Elena C. Ballantyne, David L. Streiner, Benício N. Frey, Randi E. McCabe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAnxietyDistressClinical psychologyMenopauseMedicineVasomotorDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialSexual functionPsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sexual concerns are reported by 43%-82.5% of peri- and post-menopausal women and negatively impact physical and emotional well-being. Despite the high prevalence and negative impact, treatment options are limited, particularly those which are non-pharmacological. AIM: The primary objective of this pilot trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel four-session individual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy protocol for improving sexual functioning (CBT-SC-Meno) during peri- and post-menopause. Secondary objectives included assessing body image, relationship satisfaction, and common menopause symptoms (eg, vasomotor), depression, anxiety, and self-reported health. METHODS: Participants (n = 32) were peri- or post-menopausal women experiencing primary sexual concerns and reporting a score of 26.55 or lower on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), indicating impaired sexual functioning. Eligible participants were assigned to a waitlist control condition for 4 weeks, after which they were reassessed and then completed the CBT protocol. OUTCOMES: Measures assessing sexual functioning, satisfaction, distress, and desire, as well as body image, relationship satisfaction, common menopause symptoms (eg, vasomotor), depression, anxiety, and self-reported health were completed at baseline, post-waitlist, and post-treatment. Treatment satisfaction was captured with the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire along with qualitative data. RESULTS: During the waitlist period, no significant changes were observed across measures, apart from the FSDQ concern subscale and GCS physical subscale. Following CBT-SC-Meno, participants experienced a significant improvement in overall sexual functioning (eg, desire, arousal, reduced pain, satisfaction), a decrease in symptoms of sexual distress, concern, and resistance, menopausal symptoms, symptoms of depression and anxiety, as well as improved body image, couple satisfaction, and overall health (P < 0.001). All participants endorsed high treatment satisfaction and indicated that treatment helped them better cope with their symptoms more effectively. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the effectiveness of a CBT protocol specifically designed to target sexual concerns experienced during peri- and post-menopause. Results suggest that CBT-SC-Meno leads to significant improvements in sexual functioning across several important sexual concern domains and related areas (eg, body image), in addition to several other commonly comorbid menopausal symptoms (eg, vasomotor), depression, anxiety, and self-reported overall health. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Although CBT-SC-Meno appears to be a promising treatment for sexual concerns, the sample was small and homogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence of CBT as a non-pharmacological treatment for peri- and post-menopausal women experiencing sexual concerns and offers the basis for a larger randomized clinical trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial # NCT04922385 and Accessible at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04922385?term=NCT04922385&draw=2&rank=1.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.712
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207