ArticleJAMA network open2025
Experiences of Care and Gaslighting in Patients With Vulvovaginal Disorders.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- "I don't know how to treat you": Testosterone and gynecological care for transmasculine and gender diverse adults.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2026Article
- The Clinical Impact of Patient Embarrassment in Gynecology: A Comprehensive Review of Barriers, Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Workplace gaslighting in nursing practice: a concept analysis.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Women's experiences with diagnosis and management of vaginal symptoms of menopause: a mixed-methods study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Care Pathways and Determinants in Essure® Contraceptive Implant Use and Removal: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Vulvodynia: still a dramatically neglected condition. A position statement on pathogenetic mechanisms from the Italian Society of Andrology and Sexual Medicine (SIAMS).Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2026Review
- Talking about S-E-X in Healthcare Settings: Let's Get Clinical.Delaware journal of public health · 2025Article
- Medical gaslighting: navigating patient-clinician mistrust in healthcare.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Medical gaslighting, in which a patient's concerns are dismissed without proper evaluation, has been described anecdotally in vulvovaginal patient care, but has not been quantified. Objective: To use a patient-centered instrument to measure adverse experiences in vulvovaginal care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Common themes from National Vulvodynia Association patient testimonials were used to design a mixed-methods measure of patient experience that included both quantitative and qualitative questions. An instrument was created and submitted to officers from the National Vulvodynia Association and Tight-Lipped, another patient advocacy organization, for feedback. The measure was then completed by patients before their first appointment at a vulvovaginal disorder referral clinic from August 2023 to February 2024. Exposure: Participation in the survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of reported clinician behavior and consequent distress as reported on the survey instrument. Quantitative data were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics (mean [SD], median [IQR], and percentage). Narrative responses provided by patients were analyzed using the clinical-qualitative method for content analysis. Results: A total of 520 patients completed surveys; 5 were eliminated because the patient was younger than 18 years, 6 were eliminated for duplication, 6 were eliminated because they had no past clinician, and 56 were eliminated for completely blank responses. Thus, surveys of 447 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.7 [15.2] years) were analyzed (86% response rate). Patients had a mean (SD) of 5.50 (4.53) past clinicians. Patients reported that a mean (SD) of 43.5% (33.9%) of past practitioners were supportive, 26.6% (31.7%) were belittling, and 20.5% (30.9%) did not believe the patient. In total, 186 patients (41.6%) were told they just needed to relax more, 92 (20.6%) were recommended to drink alcohol, 236 (52.8%) considered ceasing care because their concerns were not addressed, 92 (20.6%) were referred to psychiatry without medical treatment, 72 (16.8%) felt unsafe during a medical encounter, and 176 (39.4%) said they were made to feel crazy, the most distressing surveyed behavior (rated at a mean [SD] of 7.39 [3.06] of 10 on a numerical rating scale of distress). A total of 1150 quotations were analyzed qualitatively; common themes included lack of clinician knowledge (247 quotations) and dismissive behaviors (211 quotations). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a patient-centered measure of adverse experiences in vulvovaginal care was developed. Participants reported common past experiences with gaslighting and substantial distress; they frequently considered ceasing care. There is an urgent need for education supporting a biopsychosocial, trauma-informed approach to vulvovaginal pain and continued development of validated instruments to quantify patient experiences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.