In recent years, the term 'medical gaslighting' and accompanying accounts of self-identified women experiencing invalidation, dismissal and inadequate care have proliferated in the media. Gaslighting has primarily been conceptualized in the field of psychology as a phenomenon within interpersonal relationships. Following the work of Paige Sweet (American Sociological Review, 84, 2019, 851), I argue that a sociological explanation is necessary. Such an explanation illustrates how medical gaslighting is not simply an interpersonal exchange, but the result of deeply embedded and largely unchallenged ideologies underpinning health-care services. Through an intersectional feminist and Foucauldian analysis, I illuminate the ideological structures of western medicine that allow for medical gaslighting to be commonplace in the lives of women, transgender, intersex, queer and racialized individuals seeking health care. Importantly, these are not mutually exclusive groups, and I use the term bio-Others to highlight and connect how those with embodied differences are treated in medicine. This article indicates the importance of opening a robust discussion about the sociology of medical gaslighting, so that we might better understand what structural barriers people of marginalized social locations face in accessing quality health care and develop creative solutions to challenge health-care inequities.

Many countries adopted comprehensive national initiatives to promote equity in higher education with the goal of transforming the culture of research. Major health research funders are supporting this work through calls for projects that focus on equity, resulting in a proliferation of theoretical frameworks including “intersectionality,” “health equity,” and variations of equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI. This commentary is geared at individual principal investigators and health research teams who are developing research proposals and want to consider equity issues in their research, perhaps for the first time. We present histories and definitions of three commonly used frameworks: intersectionality, health equity, and EDI. In the context of health research, intersectionality is a methodology (a combination of epistemology and techniques) that can identify the relationships among individual identities and systems of oppression; however, it should also be used internally by research teams to reflect on the production of knowledge. Health equity is a societal goal that operationalizes the social determinants of health to document and address health disparities at the population level. EDI initiatives measure and track progress within organizations or teams and are best suited to inform the infrastructure and human resourcing “behind the scenes” of a project. We encourage researchers to consider these definitions and strive to tangibly move health research towards equity both in the topics we study and in the ways we do research.

Objectives Our study aimed to (1) identify barriers to equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines for Canadians with disabilities and (2) present recommendations made by study participants to improve immunization programs in terms of inclusivity and equitable access. Methods We invited Manitobans living with disabilities to participate in online focus groups. Focus groups were conducted across multiple disability experiences, although one focus group was advertised explicitly as offering simultaneous American Sign Language interpretation to encourage people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing to participate. Participants were asked about their perspectives on the management of COVID-19 public health measures and vaccination program rollout. Participants were also asked about barriers and facilitators of their vaccination experiences and if they had recommendations for improvement. Results The participants identified three areas where they encountered routine barriers in accessing the COVID-19 vaccines: (1) vaccine information and appointment booking, (2) physical access to vaccination clinics, and (3) vaccination experience. While participants identified specific recommendations to improve vaccine accessibility for people with disabilities, the single most crucial advice consistently identified was to involve people with disabilities in developing accessible immunization programs. Conclusion Meaningful engagement with people living with disabilities in immunization program planning would help ensure that people with disabilities, who already face significant challenges due to COVID-19, are offered the same protections as the rest of the population. These recommendations could be easily transferred to the administration of other large-scale immunization campaigns (e.g., influenza vaccines).