Enhancing the Sexual Function of Women Living with Chronic Pain: A Cognitive‐Behavioural Treatment Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain significantly impacts women's quality of life in the domain of sexual function. Treatment aimed at improving the sexual function of women living with chronic pain is minimal or absent within an interdisciplinary rehabilitation pain program. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a cognitive-behavioural treatment group designed to improve the sexual function of women with chronic pelvic pain, daily headache pain and neuromusculoskeletal pain within an interdisciplinary rehabilitation pain program. METHODS: Participants were 47 women who attended the treatment group. A physical therapist and a psychologist facilitated the group. The participants completed a modified version of the Sexual Activity Questionnaire pregroup and at one month postgroup, and a Treatment Helpfulness Questionnaire at the final group session. RESULTS: All 47 women found the treatment group helpful. Sexual function improved as evidenced by significant differences (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P<0.05) from pregroup to postgroup on measures of enjoyment, lubrication, satisfaction after sexual activity and satisfaction with frequency. Improvements occurred despite no change in pain level during penetration or fatigue level from pregroup to postgroup. Treatment helpfulness results showed that women valued the knowledge and skills gained in the group. Qualitative findings suggest that a cognitive shift, and communication and partner involvement may be mechanisms of change for improved sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: The sexual function of women with chronic pain can be significantly enhanced by a cognitive-behavioural treatment group delivered within an interdisciplinary rehabilitation pain program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".