MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411009857 · doi:10.1093/sexmed/qfaf042

Psychosocial and sexual well-being in a sample of Italian women with self-reported genito-pelvic pain and penetration disorder

2025· article· en· W4411009857 on OpenAlex
Martina Smorti, Simon Ghinassi, Chiara Del Cherico, Davide Dèttore

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPelvic painClinical psychologyMedicinePenetration (warfare)Sample (material)PsychologyPsychiatrySurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Genito-pelvic pain and penetration disorder (GPPPD) affects multiple aspects of a woman’s life, yet its biopsychosocial impact in the Italian context remains underexplored. Aim This study aimed to investigate differences in psychosocial and sexual well-being between women with and without self-reported GPPPD. Methods A sample of 310 women (Mage = 29.08 ± 7.93, range = 18-57) was recruited and divided into two groups: 141 women who self-reported suffering from GPPPD and 169 women who reported not suffering from it. Data were collected through online platforms and the Italian versions of the Vaginal Penetration Cognition Questionnaire, the Toronto Alexithymia Scale, the Parental Bonding Instrument, the Romance Qualities Scale, the Female Sexual Function Index, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale were administered. Since there is no Italian version of the Vaginal Penetration Cognition Questionnaire, its psychometric properties were preliminarily evaluated in an independent and convenience sample of 170 women (Mage = 28.28 ± 7.64, Range = 18-49). To explore whether the two groups differed on the study variables, a series of multivariate analyses of variance were carried out. Outcomes The outcomes of the study were the levels of the vaginal penetration-related cognitions, alexithymia, relationships with mother and partner, and life and sexual satisfaction. Results Women with GPPPD reported higher negative cognitions related to penetration, higher levels of alexithymia, a lower quality of the relationship with both the partner and the mother, as well as lower life and sexual satisfaction than the control group. Clinical Translation These findings emphasize the need for multidisciplinary approaches addressing cognitive, emotional, and relational factors to improve the well-being of women with GPPPD. Strengths and Limitations Strengths include the comprehensive assessment of biopsychosocial factors. Limitations involve reliance on self-reported diagnosis, potential recruitment bias, and the cross-sectional nature of the study. Conclusion The study highlights the extensive impact of GPPPD on women’s well-being, emphasizing the importance of tailored interventions targeting the disorder’s psychological and relational dimensions.

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.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.271 · 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