MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387495656 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20220212

Medical invalidation in the clinical encounter: a qualitative study of the health care experiences of young women and nonbinary people living with chronic illnesses

2023· article· en· W4387495656 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jennifer C. H. Sebring, Christine Kelly, Deborah McPhail, Roberta L. Woodgate

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent and Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchReflexivityPhenomenonHealth careMedicineFocus groupPsychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medical invalidation is a well-documented phenomenon in the literature on chronic illnesses, yet there is a paucity of research capturing the perspectives of young adults living with chronic illnesses, and especially of those who are gender diverse or from groups that face broader societal marginalization. Our study sought to answer the following question: How do young women and nonbinary adults living with chronic illnesses characterize their experiences of medical invalidation and its impact on their health and well-being? METHODS: This was a patient-oriented qualitative study informed by feminist disability theory. Eligibility requirements included self-identifying as having a chronic illness, self-identifying as a woman or nonbinary person receiving health care in Manitoba, and being between the ages of 18 and 35 years. Participants took part in online arts-based workshops and subsequent focus group discussion in November 2021. RESULTS: Eight women and 2 nonbinary individuals participated. Medical invalidation was experienced by all of the participants at different points in their illness journeys and took a variety of forms depending on their social location and their particular illness, positioning invalidation as an issue of in/visibility. We identified several consequences of medical invalidation, including internalizing invalidation, overcompensating for their illness, avoiding care and, ultimately, symptom intensification. We also present participants' recommendations to avoid medical invalidation. INTERPRETATION: This study provides insight into the phenomenon of medical invalidation, understood as the act of dismissing, minimizing or otherwise not taking patient concerns seriously. We suggest person-centred care may not be enough, and critical reflexivity may help avoid unintentionally invalidating patient experiences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicAdolescent and Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207