Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30850410›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Patient, client, consumer, survivor or other alternatives? A scoping review of preferred terms for labelling individuals who access healthcare across settings.

Daniel S J Costa, Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Stephanie Tesson, Zac Seidler, Anna-Lena Lopez

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05871996 (What do Individuals Known to Palliative Care and Oncology Services Think About the Terminology Used to Describe Them?), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05871996 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

What do Individuals Known to Palliative Care and Oncology Services Think About the Terminology Used to Describe Them?

TypeobservationalSponsorOur Lady's Hospice and Care ServicesRan2023 to 2025Enrolled1,532ConditionsCancerArmsPalliative Care and Oncology Survey on Terminology (POST)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Facilitating consumer partnerships in health research.Journal of translational medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Fundamental issues in epistemic injustice in healthcare.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

5 authors.

Daniel S J CostaSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca Mercieca-BebberSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3708-9099
Stephanie TessonSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Zac SeidlerSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anna-Lena LopezSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUse of the term 'patient' has been recently debated, compared with alternatives including 'consumer' and 'client'. This scoping study aimed to provide an integrated view of preferred labels across healthcare contexts and countries to clarify labelling preferences of individuals accessing healthcare.

designScoping study. DATA SOURCES: A preliminary literature search using GoogleScholar, Medline, Embase and PsycINFO found 43 key papers discussing terminology for labelling individuals accessing healthcare services. We then used citation chaining with PubMed and GoogleScholar to identify studies discussing term preferences among healthcare recipients. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: No date limits were applied, and all healthcare settings were considered. Primary research studies examining terminology preferences of individuals accessing healthcare, published in peer-reviewed journals were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All authors extracted data regarding preferred term and study characteristics, and assessed reporting quality of the studies using criteria relevant to our design.

resultsWe identified 1565 articles, of which 47 met inclusion criteria. Six articles that examined preference for personal address (eg, first name) were excluded. Of the remaining 41 studies, 33 examined generic terms ('patient', 'client', 'consumer') and 8 focused on cancer survivorship. Of the 33 examining generic terms, 27 reported a preference for 'patient' and four for 'client'. Samples preferring 'client' were typically based in mental health settings and conducted in the USA. Of the eight cancer survivorship studies, five found a preference for 'survivor', and three 'someone who had had cancer'.

conclusionsOverall, healthcare recipients appear to prefer the term 'patient', with few preferring 'consumer'. Within general clinical and research contexts, it therefore seems appropriate to continue using the label 'patient' in the absence of knowledge about an individual's preferences. Reasons for preferences (eg, familiarity, social identity) and the implications of labelling for healthcare have not been investigated adequately, necessitating future empirical (including qualitative) research.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamTerminology as TopicAttitude of Health PersonnelHealth ServicesHumansPatientsclientconsumerlabelpatientsurvivorterminology

Identifiers

PMID30850410
PMCPMC6429876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.