Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41272715›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2025

Medical gaslighting as a threat to beneficence and patient autonomy: a qualitative study.

Ya'arit Bokek-Cohen, Gillie Gabay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

2 authors.

Ya'arit Bokek-Cohen *Netanya Academic College, Netanya, Israel. ybokek@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-9549-9040
Gillie Gabay *Achva Academic College Arugot, Shikmim, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical gaslighting- a phenomenon where healthcare professionals dismiss or minimize patients' symptoms- has garnered increasing attention due to its potential to cause significant harm to patients. This study aims to examine the ethical ramifications and implications of medical gaslighting, and explore how patients interpret and experience interactions affected by medical gaslighting.

methodsWe conducted two narrative interviews with fourteen participants. The first interview was conducted 2-3 days after discharge from hospitalization, and the second was carried out a month later. We then interpreted their stories through bioethical lenses.

resultsData analysis yielded two main themes: (1) Pain dismissal and minimization; (2) Delayed or missed diagnoses- as subjectively perceived by interviewees. Using a principlist approach, we argue that medical gaslighting constitutes an obstacle to respect for patient autonomy and jeopardizes proper actualization of beneficence. Participants frequently described feeling dismissed, especially when presenting with complex or non-visible symptoms.

conclusionsMedical gaslighting appears to be a common and impactful experience that contributes to psychological distress and reduces trust in the medical system, potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment. Healthcare institutions must prioritize training on implicit bias, communication skills, and patient-centered care to mitigate these harmful interactions. Future research should further explore structural contributors and develop interventions to foster more validating clinical environments. We propose some practical implications for eradicating medical gaslighting based on our findings.

Indexed as

BeneficencePersonal AutonomyPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedDelayed DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CareQualitative ResearchTrustAutonomyBeneficenceGaslightingHospitalizationMedical gaslightingPatient-centered care

Identifiers

PMID41272715
PMCPMC12801641

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.