Cited by 22Menstrual Health and DisordersGender and Feminist StudiesGender, Health, and Social Inequality

Whose voice? Whose experiences? Women's qualitative accounts of general and private discussion of premenstrual syndrome

Sveinsdóttir, Herdís, Lundman, Berit, Norberg, Astrid·2002·Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences

Abstract

Little is known about the disparity between public perceptions of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and how women perceive PMS. In this interview study the perceptions 17 healthy women have about the discussion on PMS are described. Qualitative and quantitative content analysis of the interviews resulted in three main categories: (i) Turning women's experiences against them, (ii) PMS as a silent part of everyday life and (3) Symptoms and experiences reported: public instability, private discomfort. These categories contain statements from the participants ascertaining that men talk negatively about PMS, the media portray PMS negatively, other women's premenstrual experiences are more negative than their own experiences and they do not need to discuss their experiences although they find it important to increase positive public discussion. The conclusions are that (i) the public voice on PMS is based on negative male stereotypical views about PMS and that women participate in constructing and sustaining that view through their own descriptions of other women; (ii) through media and health education, women and men should be made aware of whose voice rules in public discussion; (iii) to educate and change the public discourse on PMS is a challenge that the caring professions must take.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1471-6712.2002.00077.x

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sveinsdóttir, H., Lundman, B., & Norberg, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Iceland (IS)
  • Umeå University (SE)
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-11-23
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
414-423
ISSN
  • 0283-9318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-6712
OpenAlex
W2076919881
Cited by
22
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Háskóli Íslands
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Menstrual Health and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
Keywords
premenstrual syndrome, women's perceptions, public discourse, media representation, gender stereotypes, men's attitudes, women's experiences, health education, public health communication
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Female, Health Education, Humans, Iceland, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Mass Media, Men, Negativism, Premenstrual Syndrome, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stereotyping, Women, Women's Rights, Needs Assessment, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review