Hysterics and Heresy: Using Dialogism to Explore the Problematics of Endometriosis Diagnosis

Emily Krebs, Kelsea V Schoenbauer
Health communication · 2019 · vol. 35(8) , pp. 1013–1022 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2019.1606136 · PMID:31023095 · W2942320807
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 13 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher

Abstract

Despite advances in biomedical technology, endometriosis remains a disease that is inefficiently diagnosed and treated. American women often suffer from debilitating symptoms for a decade before being diagnosed. Addressing this deficiency is crucial if women are to live well with endometriosis. Framed by relational dialectics theory 2.0, the current study analyzes women's experiences of endometriosis diagnoses via online narrative postings. Results reveal two centripetal (dominant) discourses: (a) the discourse of psycho-abnormality, and (b) the discourse of biological normality. Narrators' invocation of the discourse of psycho-abnormality disqualifies women's suffering as imagined and "all in their heads," whereas invocation of the discourse of biological normality naturalizes women's suffering as "just part of being a woman." The discourse of psycho-abnormality and the discourse of biological normality, both rooted in patriarchal influences, hinder diagnosis and subsequently treatment and rehabilitation of endometriosis. Encouragingly, a third (though marginalized) discourse emerged: the discourse of reclaiming expertise. Narrators' invocation of this discourse directly opposes the discourses of psycho-abnormality and biological normality by inciting validation of embodied knowledge in medical encounters and urging patients to enact agency in healthcare settings. This project discusses the interplay of these three discourses, and aims to improve diagnostic efficacy as a result.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

mesh:D004715endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Humans

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 (39)

Cited by (13)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-04T01:30:01.192114+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:22:48.502547+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK