A Content Analysis of HIV-Related Stigmatizing Language in the Scientific Literature, From 2010-2020: Findings and Recommendations for Editorial Policy

Despite negative effects of HIV-related stigma on people with HIV, some scientific literature continues to use stigmatizing terms. Our study aimed to explore the use of HIV-related stigmatizing language in the scientific literature between 2010 and 2020 based on 2015 UNAIDS terminology guidelines. We searched for articles with the stigmatizing term "HIV/AIDS-infected" or any variations that were peer-reviewed, published between 2010 and 2020, and in English or with an English translation. Our search yielded 26,476 articles that used the stigmatizing term of interest. Frequencies on the variables of interest (journal, year, and country) were run. The use of these terms increased from 2010 to 2017 and decreased from 2018 to 2020. Most journals using the terms were HIV/AIDS specific or on infectious diseases, but the journal with the greatest frequency of use was on general science and medicine. Thirty-six percent of the articles emanated from the United States. To reduce the use of stigmatizing language in the HIV literature, action should be taken by authors, reviewers, editors,educators, and publishers should create formal policies promoting use of non-stigmatizing language.

Person- and identity-first language in autism research: A systematic analysis of abstracts from 11 autism journals

LAY ABSTRACT

There are many ways to refer to an individual who is on the autism spectrum. A recommended approach has been to use person-first language (PFL), such as "person with autism." A different approach is to use identity-first language (IFL), such as "autistic person." Recent studies focused on different groups of people (e.g. autistic self-advocates, parents, and practitioners) show that some groups prefer PFL (practitioners) while others prefer IFL (autistic self-advocates). However, less is known about how researchers use PFL and IFL in academic writing (e.g. studies published in scientific journals) involving autistic research participants. Our study examined 12,962 journal abstracts (short summaries of scientific articles) from 11 academic journals that publish autism research findings. We wanted to know (a) about the use of PFL and IFL across abstracts, and (b) how PFL and IFL use has changed annually over time. We examined data for all journals individually and grouped together. Our findings showed that journal abstracts generally use PFL (65%) with some using either IFL (16%) or both PFL and IFL (20%). However, journals varied, with some showing a clear majority for PFL and a couple for IFL. Examining trends over time across journals showed that while PFL appeared to be the majority for most journals, IFL has steadily increased in the recent few years. Our study helps us understand how autism researchers write about autistic individuals and offers implications for helping researchers intentionally make choices about the language used in their autism research studies.

Person-first language in diabetes and obesity scientific publications

AIMS

We aimed to quantify the use of person-first language (PFL) among scholarly articles focusing on diabetes or obesity.

METHODS

PFL and condition-first language (CFL) terms for diabetes and obesity (e.g. diabetic, obese) were identified from existing guidelines and a review of the literature. Exact phrase literature searches were conducted between 2011 and 2020 and results were categorised as PFL, CFL or both.

RESULTS

Among diabetes articles, 43% used PFL, 40% used CFL and 17% contained both. Among obesity articles, 0.5% used PFL, 99% used CFL and 0.2% used both. The use of PFL increased by 3% per year for diabetes articles, compared to 117% for obesity articles. The rate of adoption of PFL in diabetes articles was unchanged in 2018-2020 compared to the 3 years prior.

CONCLUSIONS

While the use of person-first language in diabetes articles had increased over the review period, its rate of adoption has started to slow. Conversely, the use of PFL in obesity articles is nascent and increasing.

Call to Action: Prioritizing the Use of Inclusive, Nonstigmatizing Language in Scientific Communications

The language we use in our scientific communications can either empower or stigmatize the people we study and care for. Clinical Infectious Diseases is committed to prioritizing the use of inclusive, nonstigmatizing language in published manuscripts. We hereby call upon submitting authors, reviewers, and editors to do the same.

Preferences for identity-first versus person-first language in a US sample of autism stakeholders

LAY ABSTRACT

There is currently disagreement among professionals (such as teachers, therapists, researchers, and clinicians) about the most appropriate and respectful way to refer to individuals with disabilities in general, and those with autism, in particular. Supporters of person-first language feel that it is important to emphasize the person rather than the disorder or disability, and promote the use of terms such as, "person with autism" or "a person with ASD." The goal is to reduce stereotypes and discrimination and emphasize the person's individuality rather than their disability. However, some people within the autism community have questioned the use of person-first terms because they are awkward and use an unconventional style of language that draws attention to the disability. Moreover, autistic individuals and their families are beginning to support the use of identity-first language that embraces all aspects of one's identity. Surveys in the United Kingdom and Australia support the idea that both types of language are preferred by different groups of autism stakeholder groups. In our study, we surveyed autism stakeholders in the United States. Overwhelmingly, autistic adults (n = 299) preferred identity-first language terms to refer to themselves or others with autism. Professionals who work in the autism community (n = 207) were more likely to support and use person-first language. Language is dynamic and our findings support the need for open communication among autism professionals about how we communicate with and about autistic individuals and their families.

Addressing me in the context of my disease: Why it is so complicated

Addressing a person in the context of their disease must be done respectfully. As a person with multiple sclerosis (MS), my preference is to be referred to as such. Some people with MS refer to themselves as MSers, MS warriors, MS sufferers, and that's fine. A person with MS can refer to themselves in the context of their disease in the manner they choose. People without MS should use terminology most respectful and acceptable to the broadest of the minority. Academics sometimes use persons with MS to refer to an infinite number of people. Not only is this incorrect but use of persons has broadly fallen out of favour in recent decades. In this personal viewpoint I discuss these issues from a lived experience perspective.

'Autistic person' or 'person with autism'? Person-first language preference in Dutch adults with autism and parents

LAY ABSTRACT

There are different words to describe people with an autism diagnosis. For instance, we can put the person before autism (e.g. 'person with autism'), or we can put autism before the person (e.g. 'autistic person'). Previous research showed that autistic adults in English-speaking countries generally liked it better when autism is placed before the person. Yet, people also greatly differ in the words they like and dislike. In this study, we examined word preference in Dutch autistic adults (n = 1026; 16-84 years; 57% women) and parents of autistic children (n = 286). Via an online questionnaire, we asked our participants to select one term for autistic people that they liked best. The results showed that most adults with autism (68.3%) and parents (82.5%) preferred to put the person before autism. Younger adults, with a higher intelligence, and with more autistic traits, were a bit more likely to put autism before the person. We conclude that there are large differences in the words that people prefer. Because we found different results in our Dutch participants compared to participants in English-speaking countries, we think that the Dutch language or culture may also play a role in word preference. For now, we advise autism researchers to use both person-first and autism-first language.

Addressing Bias and Stigma in the Language We Use With Persons With Opioid Use Disorder: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND: Despite an increase in access to medications for opioid use disorder, less than 20% of individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive treatment. Stigmatizing language has been identified as a potential trigger for explicit and implicit biases that may adversely affect treatment enrollment and quality of care for persons with OUD. AIMS: To conduct a narrative review of the literature on stigmatizing language and OUD, examine how treatment outcomes are affected, and present strategies to reduce bias and promote OUD treatment. METHOD: A narrative review of the literature between 2010 and 2019 was conducted using CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO. Key search terms were opioid use disorder (or substance use disorder), stigma, and language. Fifty-two articles were screened for inclusion, and 17 articles were included in this review. RESULTS: The articles reviewed provide consensus that stigmatizing language toward persons with OUD fosters explicit and implicit bias and impedes engagement in treatment. Four themes emerged: (1) stigma and language, (2) stigma and language used by health care professionals, (3) stigma and language used by the general public, and (4) stigma and language used by people with OUD. CONCLUSIONS: Stigmatizing language is dehumanizing and plays a pivotal role in bias and discrimination that may contribute to unsatisfactory treatment outcomes among persons with OUD. Health care professionals, nursing in particular, must assume an intentional stance against stigma perpetuated toward persons with OUD through advocacy in education, practice, policy, and the media.

The use of person-first language in scientific literature focused on drug-seeking behavior: a cross-sectional analysis

CONTEXT

Person first language (PFL) - a way of referring to individuals with medical conditions or disability that emphasizes the person over their condition or disability - is important in reducing the stigma surrounding individuals who exhibit drug-seeking behavior. Drug-seeking behavior is generally associated with a negative connotation by healthcare professionals, which may create poor provider perceptions of these individuals and potentially impact patient care. Therefore, to reduce stigmatization surrounding drug-seeking behavior and to improve patient care in these individuals, the use of PFL should be promoted.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study is to investigate how frequently research articles focused on drug-seeking behavior adhere to PFL.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis systematically searching PubMed for articles published between May 1, 2011, and April 30, 2020, focused on drug-seeking behavior. To be included, the article must have met the following criteria: (1) published in a peer-reviewed journal; (2) relevant to drug-seeking behavior; and (3) must include human subjects and be retrievable in English. All articles were screened and data were extracted independently in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each article was reviewed for 19 predefined non-PFL terms with certain terms adopted from the American Medical Association Manual of Style.

RESULTS

Our search returned 699 articles related to drug-seeking behavior, of which 390 articles met inclusion criteria and were analyzed for non-PFL. Our analysis found only 13.6% (53/390) of articles adhered to PFL while 86.4% (337/390) of articles contained at least some form of non-PFL. There was no association between PFL adherence and extracted study characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

PFL adherence is uncommon among research literature focused on drug-seeking behavior. The power of language can be profound, and should be understood by researchers, health care providers, and educators alike, specifically when dealing with known and exhibited characteristics of substance use disorders. This is relevant because of the high prevalence of substance use disorders, limited amount of prior research, and the impact stigma has on patients and healthcare providers.

Leaving "Drug Abuse" behind: A Theoretical and Methodological Heuristic to Selecting "Problem Drug Use" or "Drug Misuse" as Alternative Terms

Background: Historically, drug abuse described the negative consequences of drug use as a proxy measure of maladaptive behavior that manifests within the addiction process. Negative consequences can span multiple domains including physical (e.g., blacking out), psychological (e.g., mood shifts), interpersonal (e.g., relationship problems), social (e.g., drinking and driving), and economic (e.g., job loss) problems. Objective: In determining the appropriate terminology to describe the phenomenon under investigation, researchers should consider (1) the theoretical objective (i.e., substance use construct under investigation) and (2) the research methodology being employed. Results: Problem substance use is appropriate for describing the outcome of interest when conducting cross-sectional, or pre-post, designs where investigators are interested in a snapshot of problems associated with substance use behavior. Conversely, substance misuse reflects a pattern of negative consequences over time and is appropriate when conducting longitudinal research with three or more time points. Here, substance misuse captures a pattern of substance use problems over time that may be indicative of a substance use disorder. These terms should be distinguished from studies investigating the frequency (how often) and quantity (how much) of a substance is being used where risky substance use is appropriate for cross-sectional studies and heavy substance use is appropriate for longitudinal studies. Conclusion: This framework is intended to describe the phenomena being investigated (i.e., the variable) and not the person or people experiencing a substance use problem. We should continue the dialogue of semantics in science realizing that our choice of words has important "real world" ramifications for the populations we serve.

Addicts and Admits: Metonymy in Medical Students' Reflective Writing

Phenomenon: Metonymy refers to the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for the name of the object or person being described. In medical contexts, this may involve referring to a person as a disease, body part, or other health-related noun. In this study, we explore the use of metonymy in medical students' reflective writing. Approach: Using content analysis, we identified all usages of metonymy in a sample of 802 medical student reflective essays. We analyzed them for associated themes and used the Fisher's exact test to compare frequencies of clinical ethics themes that occurred in the essays with metonymy to those without metonymy. Findings: Metonymy was used 60 times in the essays. The uses were grouped into thematic clusters of substance abuse (n = 27), illness (n = 9), body part (n = 4), clinical status (n = 6), reproductive health (n = 5), challenging clinical situations (n = 6), and other thoughts on patients as people (n = 3). Several ethical themes associated with essays using metonymy (p < .05): moral distress, substance abuse, adequate treatment, jumping to conclusions, awakening, and pain. Insights: Metonymy was relatively uncommon, and some students explicitly described the practice as dehumanizing to patients. Even so, metonymy did present in a variety of forms and was used most frequently to describe individuals with substance use disorders. Essays involving metonymy were more likely to describe a scenario that elicited moral distress in the students, which may indicate that metonymy occurs more frequently in some troubling situations.

Championing person-first language: a call to psychiatric mental health nurses

At the heart of recovery-oriented psychiatric mental health care are the dignity and respect of each person and the ways in which helping professionals convey a person's uniqueness, strengths, abilities, and needs. "Person-first language" is a form of linguistic expression relying on words that reflect awareness, a sense of dignity, and positive attitudes about people with disabilities. As such, person-first language places emphasis on the person first rather than the disability (e.g., "person with schizophrenia" rather than "a schizophrenic"). This article champions the use of person-first language as a foundation for recovery-oriented practice and enhanced collaborative treatment environments that foster respect, human dignity, and hope.