To critically examine the discourse surrounding medical gaslighting and propose a clear, theoretically grounded definition to inform research, clinical practice, and public understanding.
Approach:
Historical Context: Explores the legacy of hysteria and its impact on the dismissal and invalidation of marginalized populations in medical care.
Conceptual Framework: Analyzes existing definitions and frameworks of medical gaslighting, emphasizing the need for a sociological perspective that addresses systemic inequities.
Qualitative Analysis: Reviews qualitative studies on experiences of individuals with long COVID and other marginalized groups to illustrate the prevalence of medical gaslighting.
Key Findings:
Medical gaslighting is characterized by the dismissal and invalidation of patients' symptoms, particularly affecting marginalized populations.
The term emerged in public discourse around 2020 but lacks a consistent, academically grounded definition.
Intersectionality plays a crucial role in how individuals experience medical gaslighting, with systemic biases disadvantaging those outside the normative medical framework.
Interpretation:
A theoretically grounded understanding of medical gaslighting is necessary to address systemic inequities in healthcare.
Limitations:
The term 'medical gaslighting' is often sensationalized, which may hinder substantive engagement and research.
Current definitions may not fully capture the complexity of patient-provider interactions and the systemic issues at play.
Conclusion:
A clear, consistent definition of medical gaslighting is essential for addressing systemic injustices in healthcare.
Head and neck abscess incidence was more than 3-fold higher following the pandemic, while patient characteristics and treatment patterns remained largely similar.
