Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40509598›Full record

ArticleMedical education2025

Introducing the intruder paradox: "It's not the imposter syndrome, it's you don't want me in the field".

Kori A LaDonna, Lindsay Cowley, Emily Field, Shiphra Ginsburg, Christopher Watling, Rachael Pack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Navigators of belonging.Medical education · 2026
    Article
  4. Trends in nephrology: from MANELS to a balanced representation of all community members.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Feeling like a fraud or made to feel like one? Rethinking imposter syndrome in anesthesiology.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Gender-based disparities in self-reported procedural experience: a cross-sectional survey of medical students in Poland.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kori A LaDonnaDepartment of Innovation in Medical Education & Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4738-0146
Lindsay CowleyOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Emily FieldWomen's Studies & Feminist Research, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5308-3335
Shiphra GinsburgDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4595-6650
Christopher WatlingRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Rachael PackCentre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0293-6294

Funding

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionImposter phenomenon (IP) or syndrome is typically framed as a personal problem rooted in low self-esteem or anxiety that an individual must overcome to succeed. Critics argue that this framing overlooks external forces, such as discrimination, that engender feelings of inadequacy. Since women in medicine disproportionately experience both IP and workplace harms, our purpose was to examine the link between gender-based discrimination and IP from their point of view.

methodsWomen training and practicing across Canada were invited to participate via Twitter/X. Forty consented (n = 13 Faculty Physicians; 27 Trainees). During semi-structured interviews, participants discussed their imposter experiences, including how discrimination influenced perceptions of their competence. Data were analysed using constructivist grounded theory, with constant comparative analysis employed across three coding stages.

resultsThe link between workplace discrimination and IP is complex. Some perceived no link whereas others described IP as a trauma response to repeated instances of gender-based harms. Most participants experienced discrimination, although subtle instances led some to question whether they were overreacting. Others suggested that perceptions of incompetence were externally imposed rather than internally generated. Some also wondered if they were being "gaslighted" or manipulated by others into questioning their competence. Although some participants endorsed experiencing IP, others pushed back, rejecting the imposter label altogether: "it's not the imposter syndrome, it's you don't want me in the field." Based on participants' experiences, we developed a theoretical model called the Intruder Paradox (IPx) to nuance understanding about IP in medicine. DISCUSSION: We define IPx as a form of gaslighting used against those who do not fit sociocultural norms. Although it may co-exist with IP, IPx appears to be a distinct, overlooked barrier to personal well-being and professional advancement in medicine. Addressing IP and IPx, and achieving equity, depends on acknowledging the complex sociocultural factors that can trigger imposter feelings and be weaponized against intruders.

Indexed as

Faculty, MedicalPhysicians, WomenSexismAdultAnxiety DisordersCanadaFemaleGrounded TheoryHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative ResearchSelf ConceptWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID40509598
PMCPMC12438053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.