↓ Skip to main content

Women’s experiences of using vaginal trainers (dilators) to treat vaginal penetration difficulties diagnosed as vaginismus: a qualitative interview study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Women’s experiences of using vaginal trainers (dilators) to treat vaginal penetration difficulties diagnosed as vaginismus: a qualitative interview study
Published in
BMC Women's Health, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12905-015-0201-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kat Macey, Angela Gregory, David Nunns, Roshan das Nair

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted controversies in the conceptualisation, diagnosis and treatment of vaginismus. Vaginal trainers are currently the most widely used treatment. Critiques have highlighted concerns that the evidence-base of its effectiveness is limited, with controlled trials reporting disappointing results, and its prescription promotes 'performance-based' sexuality which may be detrimental. Despite this, little has been done to seek women's views about their treatment. This study set out to explore women's experiences of vaginismus treatment with vaginal trainers, and to use their voices to propose guidelines for improving treatment. 13 women who had used vaginal trainers for vaginal penetration difficulties diagnosed as vaginismus were recruited through a specialist clinic, university campuses, and online forums. The women took part in semi-structured individual interviews (face-to-face/telephone/Skype), which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Thematic Analysis. Four superordinate themes were elicited and used to draft 'better treatment' guidelines. Themes were: (1) Lack of knowledge, (2) Invalidation of suffering by professionals, (3) Difficult journey, and (4) Making the journey easier. This paper describes themes (3) and (4). Difficult Journey describes the long and arduous 'Journey into treatment', including difficulties asking for help, undergoing physical investigations and negotiating 'the system' of medical referrals. It also describes the sometimes demoralising process of 'being in treatment', which includes emotional and practical demands of treatment. Making the journey easier highlights the importance of and limits to 'partner support'. 'Professional support' comprises personal qualities of professionals/therapeutic relationship, the value of specialist skills and knowledge and the need for facilitating couple communication about vaginismus. 'Peer support/helping each other' describes the importance of supportive vaginimus networks and sharing tips with other women. Accessing effective treatment for vaginal penetration difficulties is difficult. The practical and emotional demands of using vaginal trainers may be underestimated by professionals, resulting in inadequate provision of support and information in practice. At times vaginal trainers may be prescribed to women who are unlikely to benefit from this treatment in isolation. Core communication skills like non-judgemental listening are important for supporting women through treatment. However professionals also need greater specialist knowledge, which in turn requires more detailed research. New ways to disseminate specialist knowledge and suggestions for further research are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 141 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 41 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Psychology 19 13%
Social Sciences 13 9%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 45 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,826,103
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#182
of 2,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,067
of 279,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,221 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.