Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42717341›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

What do we know about medical invalidation and related concepts? - A scoping review and thematic analysis about the definitions, measurements, causes, consequences and potential solutions for medical invalidation.

Seraina Petra Lerch, Clara Stille

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Seraina Petra LerchDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, DE-17475, Greifswald, Germany. Seraina.lerch@uni-greifswald.de.ORCID 0000-0003-4439-5537
Clara StilleDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, DE-17475, Greifswald, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical invalidation, medical gaslighting, and related constructs have gained visibility in public discourse but remain inconsistently defined in scientific literature. Despite growing research-often focused on specific diseases- to date, no single review has comprehensively synthesized their definitions, causes, consequences, or methods of measurement. This scoping review addresses this gap by examining medical invalidation and related constructs.

methodsUsing a preregistered protocol, we systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ProQuest (dissertations) without year restrictions. Eligible sources included peer-reviewed empirical, theoretical, and conceptual work in English addressing invalidation, gaslighting, or closely related notions within healthcare. A total of 158 studies were identified through database searches and citation tracking. Data extraction followed a standardized schema, and findings were synthesized descriptively and through thematic analysis to clarify terminology, map determinants and outcomes, and identify existing measurement approaches.

resultsThe results showed substantial inconsistency in how "invalidation," "not being taken seriously," and "gaslighting" were defined. Medical invalidation emerged as a multifactorial phenomenon driven by diagnostic challenges, structural and societal factors, provider and patient characteristics, stigma, misattribution, interactional dynamics, academic knowledge gaps, and disease-related complexity. Invalidation was associated with wide-ranging behavioural, emotional, cognitive, physical, relational, and systemic harms, while validation had consistently beneficial effects. Proposed solutions in the summarized studies included communication improvements, clinician training, patient support, targeted research, and structural and systemic changes. DISCUSSIONS: Medical invalidation represents a complex, systemic issue with significant implications for patient safety. The discussion highlights its multifactorial origins, its potential to cause both psychological and physical harm, and the need for clearer conceptualisation within the field. Advancing research requires validated instruments and longitudinal designs to examine underlying mechanisms and consequences. Addressing medical invalidation will demand multi-level interventions to improve communication, reduce structural barriers, and promote equitable, patient-centred care. OSF PREREGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MPE6U.

Indexed as

Medical ErrorsHumansBeing taken seriouslyMedical gaslightingMedical invalidationPatient-provider-relationshipPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID42717341
PMCPMC13560384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.