Problems women patients experience in the medical encounter for chronic pelvic pain: a New Zealand study

Qualitative OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 33 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

New Zealand women with chronic pelvic pain report difficulties with diagnosis, communication, information, and treatment, experiencing negation of their pain, a focus on technology over patient narrative, and assumptions of psychological issues.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Women who have used the New Zealand health services for chronic pelvic pain have reported problems with diagnosis, communication with the doctor, lack of information, and inappropriate treatment. Six focus groups were conducted in which women talked about their experiences of using the health services for chronic pelvic pain. A discourse analysis of this material provided a conceptual basis for understanding the key dimensions structuring women's experience. Themes of particular concern were that (a) doctors negated the woman's own experience of the pain and its meaning to her and this negation affected her ability to take responsibility for her condition; (b) the medical "extraction" of symptoms through technology overshadows the woman's discursive interpretation of, and voicing of, her symptoms; and (c) the concept of "pelvic pain without organic pathology" implies an absence that becomes filled with the specter of neurosis or psychological problems.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

chronic_pelvic_pain

MeSH descriptors

Patient Satisfaction Pelvic Pain Physician-Patient Relations Attitude of Health Personnel Chronic Disease Female Focus Groups Humans New Zealand Nursing Methodology Research Pelvic Pain Pelvic Pain Pelvic Pain

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (26)

Cited by (30)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:59:49.088203+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK