Skip to content

Review, 1995

Who benefits from treating premenstrual symptoms as a medical condition called PMS?

This paper argues that PMS is not purely a biological illness but also a concept shaped by culture, history and politics, and that after decades of research there is still no agreement on how to define, explain or treat it.

Early or limited evidence Not a patient study; a review of academic and feminist writing about PMS.

What they did

This is a feminist theoretical review of the academic literature on PMS. It examines the historical, cultural, economic and political forces behind how PMS became a popular medical label, rather than testing any treatment on patients.

What they found

After more than 60 years of research, there is still no consensus on how to define PMS, what causes it, how to treat it, or whether the PMS concept itself is even useful. The authors argue PMS rests partly on unstated, deeply held beliefs about female biology and psychology rather than being a purely biomedical fact.

What it means for you

The takeaway is that the PMS label itself may need rethinking, with new concepts and research questions needed to properly study premenstrual experiences. This is a review of ideas and arguments, not a patient study, so it gives no new data on symptoms, causes or treatments.

60 years

Years PMS has been researched

About the study

Original title
Rethinking the label: who benefits from the PMS construct?
Authors
Gurevich M
Journal
Women & health
Year
1995
Study design
Review
What was tested
None tested; this is a conceptual and historical analysis of the PMS category itself.

Topics