The Effectiveness of an Internet-Based Psychological Treatment Program for Female Sexual Dysfunction
Abstract
Introduction There has been limited evaluation of the effectiveness of psychological interventions for female sexual dysfunction (FSD). Furthermore, none of these studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these programs delivered over the Internet. Aim The current study evaluated an Internet-based psychological treatment program for FSD. Revive consisted of three well-established and validated treatment components: communication skills training, sensate focus exercises, and regular contact with a therapist. Main outcome measures Outcome measures included: the Female Sexual Function Index; the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale; the Sexual Function Scale; and the Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships. Methods In total, 39 women (17 in treatment group and 22 in control group) completed the program. The mean age for the treatment group was 34.91 (standard deviation [SD] = 10.27) and 33.30 years (SD = 9.34) for the control group. Results The results demonstrated that women who completed treatment reported improved sexual and relationship functioning in comparison with those who received no treatment. Conclusions These findings highlight the suitability of the Internet for providing psychological treatment for FSD and for targeting the individual and relationship factors often associated with these disorders.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There are promising results regarding CBT intervention delivered via the internet for women with sexual dysfunction, including genital pain.
“There are also promising results regarding CBT intervention delivered via the internet for women with sexual dysfunction, including genital pain (Jones and McCabe, 2011).”
From Internet-based treatment for vulvodynia (EMBLA) – Study protocol for a randomised controlled study (2021) · cites this paper as Jones and McCabe, 2011
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 100
- Authors
- Jones, L. M., & McCabe, M. P.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- McCabe, M. P.
- Venue
- The Journal of Sexual Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-10-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2781-2792
- ISSN
- 1743-6095 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-6109
- OpenAlex
- W1527820694
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- The Journal of Sexual Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
- Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- female sexual dysfunction, internet-based psychological treatment, online therapy, communication skills training, sexual function, relationship functioning, intimacy, anxiety and depression, women's sexual health
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Libido, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychological Tests, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sexual Behavior, Treatment Outcome, Sexual Dysfunctions, Psychological, Internet
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review