Genitopelvic Pain in Sexually Minoritized and Heterosexual Women: Differences in Disability and Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genitopelvic pain, defined as recurrent pain in the genital or pelvic area, is common but understudied, with especially limited research in minoritized populations. Cognitive variables such as pain acceptance play an important role in genitopelvic pain and its treatment. However, most research on clinically relevant cognitive variables has been conducted in heterosexual samples. This gap in the literature may limit efforts to address sexual distress and pain-related disability in sexually minoritized individuals. The present study therefore examined whether sexual minority status was associated with pain- related disability, sexual distress, and pain acceptance among women with genitopelvic pain. We also explored associations between pain acceptance and pain-related disability and sexual distress. Participants completed baseline measures of a longitudinal study on genitopelvic pain, using validated self-report scales. Group differences and associations were analyzed using t-tests and regressions. Compared to heterosexual women, sexually minoritized participants reported lower pain-related disability (p = .034) and sexual distress (p = .020), and greater pain acceptance (p = .033). Among minoritized participants, greater acceptance was negatively associated with both sexual distress (p = .002) and pain-related disability (p = .010). These findings reinforce the value of acceptance-based interventions for minoritized individuals. Additionally, pain acceptance may function as a protective factor in sexually minoritized women with genitopelvic pain. Limitations include the cross-sectional design, use of self-report measures, and a small sample size (n = 33 minoritized, n = 35 majoritized). Future research should test these relationships within larger diverse samples and use longitudinal designs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".