ArticleFamily practice2025
The Vulvodynia Primary Care Toolkit: results of a mixed-method evaluation with community-based family physicians in British Columbia.
Article in Family practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare providers often lack awareness, knowledge, and confidence in managing vulvodynia, which can lead to difficulties with diagnosis and treatment for individuals with the condition.
objectiveTo develop and test an educational online toolkit tailored to supporting community-based primary care providers with diagnosis, treatment, and patient support for vulvodynia.
methodsA sample of 19 community-based family physicians completed online surveys before and after testing the Vulvodynia Primary Care Toolkit (the toolkit hereafter) in their practice for 6 months. Nine physicians also completed a semi-structured interview to describe their experiences using the toolkit.
resultsThe toolkit was adopted into clinical care, being used an average of 4.1 times per physician (SD = 2.7) during the test period. The toolkit demonstrated high acceptability, as evidenced by a high level of reported satisfaction with the toolkit and the amount of information it contained. The toolkit increased self-reported knowledge and confidence in diagnosing (P = .003), treating (P < .001), and supporting (P < .001) patients with vulvodynia. Through reflexive thematic analysis, we generated five themes from interview data that represented physicians' experiences: (i) There are facilitators and barriers to toolkit use in practice, (ii) the toolkit is valued by family physicians, (iii) the toolkit is educational, (iv) the toolkit is empowering, and (v) the toolkit improves vulvodynia management and referrals.
conclusionAn online educational toolkit tailored to community-based primary care settings supports the management of patients with vulvodynia by family physicians. Our findings lay the foundation for the upscaling of this tool.
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.