ArticleJournal of healthcare risk management : the journal of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management2026
Gaslighting in the context of diagnostic safety: A concept analysis.
Article in Journal of healthcare risk management : the journal of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management, 2026. 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.
- Gaslighting in the context of diagnostic safety: A concept analysis.Journal of healthcare risk management : the journal of the American Society for Healthcare Risk Management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic errors significantly impact patient outcomes and are often linked to dysfunctional team dynamics. Gaslighting, characterized by patterned distortion and doubt induction, is increasingly recognized among health care professionals and may compromise diagnostic safety. Traditionally examined in provider-patient relationships, gaslighting within teams remains underexplored. This concept analysis examines gaslighting within health care teams in the context of diagnostic safety, identifying its defining attributes, antecedents, consequences, and implications. The Walker and Avant method was used to guide this concept analysis. A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase, yielding 12 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Extracted data were analyzed to identify common themes, focusing on gaslighting's characteristics, triggers, and outcomes within interprofessional teams. Gaslighting in health care teams is characterized by dismissiveness, undermining behavior, and induced doubt in colleagues' clinical judgments. Antecedents include hierarchical power structures, workplace stress, and poor communication. Consequences involve emotional distress, loss of trust, and increased risk of diagnostic error. Tools like the Gaslighting at Work Questionnaire may assist in assessment. Recognizing and addressing gaslighting is critical to improving diagnostic safety. Organizational strategies must support psychological safety, open dialogue, and professional respect.
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.