Background: Investigation of vaginal penetration cognitions and metacognitive beliefs in genito-pelvic pain and penetration disorder (GPPPD) could be important for understanding the underlying mechanisms of sexual disorders. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare healthy controls and GPPPD women for vaginal penetration cognitions and metacognitions. Methods: Outpatients with GPPPD (n = 135) and healthy controls (n = 136) were evaluated with Sociodemographic Data Form, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (SCID-I), SCID nonpatient version, Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction Female Form (GRISS), Vaginal Penetration Cognition Questionnaire, Metacognitions Questionnaire (MQ), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), SCID and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D). Outcomes: The relationship between metacognitions and vaginal penetration cognitions was detected, and patients with GPPPD and healthy controls were compared for metacognitions. Results: The MQ total score and all MQ subdimension scores other than positive beliefs about worry of GPPPD were found to be significantly higher in the GPPPD group than in controls. All Vaginal Penetration Cognition Questionnaire subdimension scores except positive cognitions for penetration score were significantly higher in patients with GPPPD than in controls. The total and frequency of sexuality, sexual communication between partners, avoidance of sexuality, nonsensuality, vaginismus, satisfaction, and anorgasmia subscores of the GRISS were significantly higher in the GPPPD group. Cognitive self-consciousness, need for controlling thoughts, and HAM-D values had a significant and independent effect on distinguishing the patients with GPPPD from the controls. Clinical Implications: Our results may be important to address the metacognitions in the treatment of women with GPPPD. Strengths & Limitations: The strengths are large-sample case and control groups, comparison with the control group using both clinical interviews and scale evaluations, diagnosis of GPPPD using clinical interviews and with 2 validated scales, exclusion of patients with depression and anxiety disorders, and evaluation of metacognitions not affected by concomitant disorders. The cross-sectional nature of our study and the fact that it was performed only in treatment-seeking groups and recruitment of hospital workers' relatives as a control group were limitations of the study. Conclusion: In addition to the behavioral components of GPPPD treatment, the emphasis on metacognitions especially in the treatment process may have a positive effect on treatment. Copyright (C) 2020, International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
