From Vaginismus to Genito-Pelvic Pain/Penetration Disorder: A Bibliometric and Thematic Analysis of the Literature
Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, cilt.52, sa.7, ss.765-782, 2026 (SSCI, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 52 Sayı: 7
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1080/0092623x.2026.2699264
- Dergi Adı: Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, CINAHL, EMBASE, Gender Studies Database, MEDLINE, Psycinfo, Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest), Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO), Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest), Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection (EBSCO), Religion Database (ProQuest), Sociology Source Ultimate (EBSCO)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.765-782
- Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
The reclassification of vaginismus under genito-pelvic pain/penetration disorder (GPPPD) in the DSM-5 has reshaped the conceptual framework of female sexual pain disorders, introducing both integration and terminological heterogeneity. This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric and thematic analysis of the vaginismus/GPPPD literature, mapping conceptual, clinical, and disciplinary shifts over time. A bibliometric analysis was conducted using the Web of Science Core Collection (1994–2026). After screening and deduplication, 655 articles and reviews were analyzed using Python-based tools for descriptive bibliometrics, network analysis (coauthorship, co-citation, keyword cooccurrence), and text mining (TF-IDF and nonnegative matrix factorization). Publication output was descriptively higher after the DSM-5 transition: 220 records were identified for the pre-DSM-5 period (1994–2012), whereas 435 records were identified from 2013 onward, with the mean annual publication count increasing from 11.58 to 31.07 publications per year. The literature evolved from a predominantly psychosexual framework toward pain-focused, multidisciplinary, and biopsychosocial models incorporating pelvic floor dysfunction, women’s health, and sociocultural context. Despite diagnostic changes, the term vaginismus remained highly prevalent. Psychosocial assessment persisted as a central domain, while multidisciplinary and rehabilitation-oriented approaches gained prominence. Overall, the field reflects conceptual expansion rather than replacement, underscoring the need for greater terminological clarity and interdisciplinary collaboration.