Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30445949›Full record

ArticleBMC international health and human rights2018

Words matter: a call for humanizing and respectful language to describe people who experience incarceration.

Nguyen Toan Tran, Stéphanie Baggio, Angela Dawson, Éamonn O'Moore, Brie Williams, Precious Bedell, Olivier Simon, Willem Scholten, Laurent Getaz, Hans Wolff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC international health and human rights, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Nguyen Toan TranDivision of Prison Health, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Ch. du Petit-Bel-Air 2, CH-1225, Chêne-Bourg, Switzerland. nguyen-toan.tran@hcuge.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-7134-7878
Stéphanie BaggioDivision of Prison Health, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Ch. du Petit-Bel-Air 2, CH-1225, Chêne-Bourg, Switzerland.
Angela DawsonAustralian Centre for Public and Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, University of Technology, PO Box 123, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Éamonn O'MoorePublic Health England & UK Collaborating Centre, WHO Health in Prisons Programme, Premier House, 60 Caversham Road, Reading, RG1 7EB, UK.
Brie WilliamsDivision of Geriatrics, Criminal Justice & Health Program, University of California in San Francisco, 3333 California Street, San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA.
Precious BedellDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Rochester, 300 Crittenden Boulevard, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
Olivier SimonPsychiatry Department, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Lausanne, Av. Recordon 40, 1004, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Willem ScholtenWillem Scholten Consultancy, Wielsekade 64, 3411 AD, Lopik, The Netherlands.
Laurent GetazDivision of Prison Health, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Ch. du Petit-Bel-Air 2, CH-1225, Chêne-Bourg, Switzerland.
Hans WolffDivision of Prison Health, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Ch. du Petit-Bel-Air 2, CH-1225, Chêne-Bourg, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWords matter when describing people involved in the criminal justice system because language can have a significant impact upon health, wellbeing, and access to health information and services. However, terminology used in policies, programs, and research publications is often derogatory, stigmatizing, and dehumanizing. DISCUSSION: In response, health experts from Europe, the United States, and Australia recommend that healthcare professionals, researchers, and policy makers working with people in detention follow key principles that foster constructive and humanizing language. These principles include: engage people and respect their preferences; use stigma-free and accurate language; prioritize individuals over their characteristics; and cultivate self-awareness. The article offers examples of problematic terms to be avoided because they do not convey respect for incarcerated people and propose preferred wording which requires contextualization to local language, culture, and environment.

conclusionThe use of respectful and appropriate language is a cornerstone of reducing harm and suffering when working with people involved in the criminal justice system; the use of stigmatizing and dehumanizing language must therefore come to an end.

Indexed as

Human RightsPrisonsRespectTerminology as TopicAustraliaEuropeHumansPrisonersSocial StigmaUnited StatesAccessDiscriminationHarm reductionHealth in prisonsHuman rightsIncarcerationStigmaTerminology

Identifiers

PMID30445949
PMCPMC6240232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.