ArticleFamily practice2019
Women's appraisal of the management of vulvodynia by their general practitioner: a qualitative study.
Article in Family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A mixed methods systematic literature review of barriers and facilitators to help-seeking among women with stigmatised pelvic health symptoms.BMC women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Understanding Patient Experiences of Vulvodynia Through Reddit: Qualitative Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- The Vulvodynia Primary Care Toolkit: results of a mixed-method evaluation with community-based family physicians in British Columbia.Family practice · 2025Article
- Yonder: Earache, personality disorder, pain scores, and vulvodynia.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- A scoping review of vulvodynia research: Diagnosis, treatment, and care experiences.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProvoked Vulvodynia (PVD) is the most common cause of vulvar pain. General practitioners (GPs) are insufficiently familiar with it, causing a delay in many women receiving correct diagnosis and treatment. Besides patients factors, this delay can partly be explained by the reluctance of GPs to explore the sexual context of PVD and by their negative emotional reactions such as helplessness and frustration when consulted by patients with medically unexplained symptoms like PVD.
objectiveTo gain insight into how women with PVD perceive and evaluate condition management by their GP, in order to support GPs in the consultation of women with PVD.
methodsWe performed face-to-face in-depth interviews with women diagnosed with PVD. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. The Consolidated Criteria for reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ-criteria) were applied.
resultsAnalysis of the interviews generated four interrelated themes: Doctor-patient relationship, Lack of knowledge, Referral process and Addressing sexual issues. Empathy of the GP, involvement in decision-making and referral were important factors in the appreciation of the consultation for women with PVD who were referred to a specialist. Because women were reluctant to start a discussion about sexuality, they expected a proactive attitude from their GP. The communication with and the competence of the GP ultimately proved more important in the contact than the gender of the GP.
conclusionWomen with PVD prefer a patient-centred approach and want GPs to acknowledge their autonomy and to address sexuality proactively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.