ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
From pain gaslighting to gender biases in women's accounts of hysteroscopy: A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite being regarded as the gold standard, outpatient hysteroscopy (OPH) is associated with inconsistent outcomes and pain, while the clinical, organisational, and personal determinants shaping patient-centred experience remain poorly characterised.
objectivesThis study aimed to harness the authenticity and richness of naturally occurring online qualitative data to explore the clinical, organisational, and personal factors that shape women's hysteroscopy experiences, offering vital insights for service improvement.
designAn in-depth qualitative investigation of hysteroscopy experiences, as shared by individuals on a publicly accessible online discussion forum.
methodsFour thousand seven hundred sixty-nine posts across 277 discussion threads published between 2018 and 2024 were collected from Mumsnet.com, representing 1971 forum users discussing their personal hysteroscopy experiences. Posts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, informed by a constructivist epistemology and a latent, inductive analytic orientation, to capture both the depth and diversity of online contributions.
resultsFive themes captured women's specific hysteroscopy experiences: (1) Contingent Consent, (2) Unacknowledged Vulnerability, (3) Analgesia Roulette, (4) Gynaecological Pain Gaslighting, and (5) Gendered Pain Gap. These themes delineate a hysteroscopy pathway where consent is shaped by limited choices and misinformation, vulnerability is heightened by procedural exposure, pain relief is inconsistently applied, women's suffering is routinely dismissed, and gender biases reinforce unequal standards of care.
conclusionThis study identifies clinical blind-spots that contribute to perceptions of systemic neglect in women's gynaecological health care, evidenced by inconsistent pain management, inadequate consent, and gendered biases in OPH. These findings present an opportunity to inform structural reforms that advance equitable, patient-centred gynaecological care and improve clinical accountability.
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.