Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42717341

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
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical 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. METHODS: Using 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. RESULTS: The 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.

Explore related subjects

HumansMedical ErrorsBeing taken seriouslyMedical gaslightingMedical invalidationPatient safetyPatient-provider-relationshipScoping ReviewJournal ArticleSystematic Review

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Seraina Petra Lerch, Clara Stille. 2026-09-08. 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.. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-14736-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Humans subjectJournal Article subjectPatient Safety subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Pictographs: feasibility and acceptability of a novel method of newborn identification to reduce wrong-patient errors in the NICU.

Wrong-patient errors cause serious harm in newborns. These errors involve ordering and administering tests, procedures, medications, and breast milk to an unintended patient. Newborns receiving care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) are at particularly high risk. Although more distinct newborn naming conventions as recommended by the Joint Commission significantly reduce wrong-patient orders, name similarities among multiple-birth infants and truncation of differentiating information in some electronic health record (EHR) systems contribute to this persistent increased risk. Accordingly, novel newborn identifiers are urgently needed. We propose Pictographs - images that are appealing, recognizable, and appropriate - to serve as visual identifiers for newborns in NICUs. Pictographs are selected by caregivers, uploaded into the EHR, and displayed at bedside. As part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing effectiveness of Pictographs to prevent wrong-patient order errors, we initially evaluated feasibility and acceptability of Pictographs at two study sites. Pictographs as novel visual identifiers for newborns in the NICU were generally well received by caregivers and clinicians, and the vast majority of caregivers selected a Pictograph for their infant(s), which was posted at the bedside and uploaded into the EHR. Ordering clinicians - the primary target of the intervention to prevent wrong-patient errors - recognized the potential for Pictographs to provide a visual cue when placing orders, particularly for multiple-birth infants. Here, we describe the rationale, implementation, framework, feasibility, usefulness, and acceptability of Pictographs among key stakeholders. If found effective for preventing wrong-patient errors, Pictographs could be adopted as a patient safety solution in hospitals worldwide.

Female↗
PubMed2026

Premature closure underlies bias in medical diagnosis in students: A randomised controlled experiment.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study reported in this article was to shed light on the cognitive mechanism mediating between biasing information and diagnostic error. The literature suggests at least two different hypotheses: premature closure leading biased participants to spend less time on diagnosis or increased competition between diagnostic hypotheses. The latter hypothesis predicts that biased participants would spend more time reaching a diagnosis. METHOD: Using the salient distracting findings (SDF) experimental paradigm, we biased 58 fourth-year medical students while diagnosing 12 clinical vignettes in a within-group incomplete block design under three conditions: cases presented without SDF, with SDF at the beginning and with SDF at the end. For each of these conditions, diagnostic accuracy, the number of SDF-related mistakes and time per word needed to process the case were recorded. The data were analysed using linear mixed modelling. Estimated marginal mean scores were reported. RESULTS: Participants confronted with salient distracting features (SDFs) at the beginning of a clinical case demonstrated significantly lower diagnostic accuracy (mean 0.11) compared with the No-SDF condition (0.27), representing a 61% reduction (F2,693&#x2009;=&#x2009;11.995, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001), and made more SDF-related mistakes (F2, 693&#x2009;=&#x2009;16.395, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). When SDFs were presented at the end of the case, diagnostic accuracy was also reduced (mean 0.17; 36% reduction), but processing time did not differ from the No-SDF condition. Only early presentation of SDFs was associated with reduced processing time per word (F2,636&#x2009;=&#x2009;4.799, p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.01), consistent with premature closure. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that biasing information increases diagnostic error in medical students and that only early bias is associated with reduced information processing. The data do not support the competition hypothesis for early bias, as processing time did not increase under biasing conditions. Premature closure can therefore be directly observed rather than inferred, inviting further research.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Civil liability in oral & maxillofacial surgery: &#x391; systematic review.

Maxillofacial surgery is a surgical specialty with anatomical, functional, and aesthetic requirements, which makes it a field at increased risk of medical negligence and subsequent legal claims. The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and used international medical and legal databases. Studies that analyzed court decisions, insurance claims, or recorded compensation data related to maxillofacial surgery were included. The extracted data included, among others, the year and country of publication, the causes of action, and the amounts of financial compensation. Most lawsuits originate from countries with developed medical liability systems, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom, and there has been an increasing trend in publications over the last two decades. The most common causes of lawsuits involve nerve injuries, delayed or incorrect diagnoses, technical errors during surgery, and inadequate informed consent. The amounts of compensation vary widely, from lower five-digit amounts in milder cases to particularly high amounts in cases of permanent functional or aesthetic damage, placing a significant overall financial burden on health systems. Medical negligence in maxillofacial surgery constitutes an important forensic and socioeconomic issue. Understanding the causes of lawsuits and their financial consequences can help improve clinical practice, inform patients, and prevent legal disputes.

Humans↗