“Oh God, I Hope She Takes Me Seriously”: How Care-Seekers With Endometriosis and Physicians Work to Perform and Undermine Epistemic Credibility and Knowledge in Endometriosis Care

Malavika Eby, Kang Xu, N. E. Spencer, N. M. Donnellan, J. F. Chang
In: Women's Reproductive Health · 2026 · vol. 13(2) , pp. 575–591 · doi:10.1080/23293691.2026.2636616 · W7140292454
article OA: closed CC0
Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This paper examines how patients with endometriosis and physicians negotiate and challenge each other's knowledge and credibility during healthcare encounters, impacting the perceived validity of their experiences and expertise.

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

Abstract

Physicians must rely on patient-reported symptoms to care for “invisible illnesses,” including endometriosis. Physicians are inclined to trust or dismiss testimonies from those with endometriosis based on their perceived credibility. This study uses semistructured interviews with 38 U.S.-based individuals with endometriosis (“care-seekers”) and physicians to examine how care-seekers utilize their self-presentation in medical encounters to negotiate credibility and knowledge with their physicians, while building trust together. Primary themes include (a) Certain people with endometriosis are perceived with suspicion and decreased credibility due to aspects of their identities, like age, gender, and health literacy; (b) online research is a source of mixed outcomes by enhancing care-seekers’ health literacy but causing some to be judged as “pseudo-experts” or “Dr. Google”; and (c) people with endometriosis adopt strategies to “perform credibility,” such as modifying appearance and behavior.
Full text 1,503 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Physicians must rely on patient-reported symptoms to care for “invisible illnesses,” including endometriosis. Physicians are inclined to trust or dismiss testimonies from those with endometriosis based on their perceived credibility. This study uses semistructured interviews with 38 U.S.-based individuals with endometriosis (“care-seekers”) and physicians to examine how care-seekers utilize their self-presentation in medical encounters to negotiate credibility and knowledge with their physicians, while building trust together. Primary themes include (a) Certain people with endometriosis are perceived with suspicion and decreased credibility due to aspects of their identities, like age, gender, and health literacy; (b) online research is a source of mixed outcomes by enhancing care-seekers’ health literacy but causing some to be judged as “pseudo-experts” or “Dr. Google”; and (c) people with endometriosis adopt strategies to “perform credibility,” such as modifying appearance and behavior. Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Data Availability Statement The qualitative interview transcripts generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to the sensitive nature of the topics discussed and the potential for participant identifiability. Deidentified excerpts are included in the article. Additional materials are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, subject to ethical approval.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

Citation neighborhood

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. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (52)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-24T06:03:59.080206+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK