What do we know about medical invalidation and related concepts? - A scoping review and thematic analysis about the definitions, measurements, causes, consequences and potential solutions for medical invalidation.
{"title":"What do we know about medical invalidation and related concepts? - A scoping review and thematic analysis about the definitions, measurements, causes, consequences and potential solutions for medical invalidation.","authors":"Seraina Petra Lerch, Clara Stille","doi":"10.1186/s12913-026-14736-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical invalidation, medical gaslighting, and related constructs have gained visibility in public discourse but remain inconsistently defined in scientific literature. Despite growing research-often focused on specific diseases- to date, no single review has comprehensively synthesized their definitions, causes, consequences, or methods of measurement. This scoping review addresses this gap by examining medical invalidation and related constructs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a preregistered protocol, we systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ProQuest (dissertations) without year restrictions. Eligible sources included peer-reviewed empirical, theoretical, and conceptual work in English addressing invalidation, gaslighting, or closely related notions within healthcare. A total of 158 studies were identified through database searches and citation tracking. Data extraction followed a standardized schema, and findings were synthesized descriptively and through thematic analysis to clarify terminology, map determinants and outcomes, and identify existing measurement approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed substantial inconsistency in how \"invalidation,\" \"not being taken seriously,\" and \"gaslighting\" were defined. Medical invalidation emerged as a multifactorial phenomenon driven by diagnostic challenges, structural and societal factors, provider and patient characteristics, stigma, misattribution, interactional dynamics, academic knowledge gaps, and disease-related complexity. Invalidation was associated with wide-ranging behavioural, emotional, cognitive, physical, relational, and systemic harms, while validation had consistently beneficial effects. Proposed solutions in the summarized studies included communication improvements, clinician training, patient support, targeted research, and structural and systemic changes.</p><p><strong>Discussions: </strong>Medical invalidation represents a complex, systemic issue with significant implications for patient safety. The discussion highlights its multifactorial origins, its potential to cause both psychological and physical harm, and the need for clearer conceptualisation within the field. Advancing research requires validated instruments and longitudinal designs to examine underlying mechanisms and consequences. Addressing medical invalidation will demand multi-level interventions to improve communication, reduce structural barriers, and promote equitable, patient-centred care. OSF PREREGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MPE6U.</p>","PeriodicalId":9012,"journal":{"name":"BMC Health Services Research","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13560384/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-14736-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Medical invalidation, medical gaslighting, and related constructs have gained visibility in public discourse but remain inconsistently defined in scientific literature. Despite growing research-often focused on specific diseases- to date, no single review has comprehensively synthesized their definitions, causes, consequences, or methods of measurement. This scoping review addresses this gap by examining medical invalidation and related constructs.
Methods: Using a preregistered protocol, we systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ProQuest (dissertations) without year restrictions. Eligible sources included peer-reviewed empirical, theoretical, and conceptual work in English addressing invalidation, gaslighting, or closely related notions within healthcare. A total of 158 studies were identified through database searches and citation tracking. Data extraction followed a standardized schema, and findings were synthesized descriptively and through thematic analysis to clarify terminology, map determinants and outcomes, and identify existing measurement approaches.
Results: The results showed substantial inconsistency in how "invalidation," "not being taken seriously," and "gaslighting" were defined. Medical invalidation emerged as a multifactorial phenomenon driven by diagnostic challenges, structural and societal factors, provider and patient characteristics, stigma, misattribution, interactional dynamics, academic knowledge gaps, and disease-related complexity. Invalidation was associated with wide-ranging behavioural, emotional, cognitive, physical, relational, and systemic harms, while validation had consistently beneficial effects. Proposed solutions in the summarized studies included communication improvements, clinician training, patient support, targeted research, and structural and systemic changes.
Discussions: Medical invalidation represents a complex, systemic issue with significant implications for patient safety. The discussion highlights its multifactorial origins, its potential to cause both psychological and physical harm, and the need for clearer conceptualisation within the field. Advancing research requires validated instruments and longitudinal designs to examine underlying mechanisms and consequences. Addressing medical invalidation will demand multi-level interventions to improve communication, reduce structural barriers, and promote equitable, patient-centred care. OSF PREREGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MPE6U.
背景:医疗无效、医疗煤气灯和相关结构已经在公共话语中获得了知名度,但在科学文献中仍然存在不一致的定义。尽管越来越多的研究——通常集中在特定的疾病上——到目前为止,还没有一篇综述全面地综合了它们的定义、原因、后果或测量方法。本范围审查通过检查医疗失效和相关结构来解决这一差距。方法:采用预先注册的方案,系统地检索PubMed、CINAHL、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar和ProQuest(论文),没有年份限制。合格的来源包括同行评议的经验、理论和英文概念性工作,涉及医疗保健中的无效、煤气灯或密切相关的概念。通过数据库检索和引文跟踪,共确定了158项研究。数据提取遵循标准化模式,并通过描述性和专题分析对结果进行综合,以澄清术语,绘制决定因素和结果,并确定现有的测量方法。结果:结果显示在如何定义“无效”、“不被认真对待”和“煤气灯”方面存在实质性的不一致。医疗失效是一种多因素现象,由诊断挑战、结构和社会因素、提供者和患者特征、耻辱、错误归因、相互作用的动态、学术知识差距和疾病相关的复杂性驱动。无效与广泛的行为、情感、认知、身体、关系和系统伤害有关,而验证始终具有有益的影响。在总结的研究中提出的解决方案包括改善沟通、临床医生培训、患者支持、有针对性的研究以及结构和系统的改变。讨论:医疗失效是一个复杂的系统性问题,对患者安全具有重大影响。讨论强调了它的多因素起源,它可能造成心理和身体伤害,以及在该领域内需要更明确的概念。推进研究需要有效的工具和纵向设计来检查潜在的机制和后果。解决医疗失效问题需要多层次的干预措施,以改善沟通,减少结构性障碍,促进公平、以患者为中心的护理。OSF预注册:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MPE6U。
期刊介绍:
BMC Health Services Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of health services research, including delivery of care, management of health services, assessment of healthcare needs, measurement of outcomes, allocation of healthcare resources, evaluation of different health markets and health services organizations, international comparative analysis of health systems, health economics and the impact of health policies and regulations.