ArticleJAMA network open2022
Examination of Stigmatizing Language in the Electronic Health Record.
Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
108 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Adherence to Updated Race and Ethnicity Reporting Guidance in Ophthalmology Journals.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Understanding Stigmatizing Language Lexicons: A Comparative Analysis in Clinical Contexts.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Pooled it
- Do they speak like me? Exploring how perceptions of linguistic difference may influence patient perceptions of healthcare providers.Medical education online · 2022Trial
- Artificial intelligence for symptom assessment and patient-reported outcomes in neuro-oncology.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Review
- Hospital-Based Clinicians' Knowledge and Practices Regarding Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation: A Multicenter Survey.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Patient Experiences of Disrespectful or Judgmental Language in Medical Records.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Beyond the sum of its parts: a scoping review on complex mental health care needs.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2026Review
- Semantic Similarity Search Approach to Extract Exemplars of Stigmatizing and Positive Language in Obstetric Clinical Notes: Exploratory Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Social Determinants of Health Coding Among Hospital Visits Made by Adults With Cancer.JCO oncology practice · 2026Article
- From language matters to stigma-free communication in diabetes: Evolution, challenges, and next steps.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Review
- Stigmatizing Language in Gender-Expansive Patient Records: Corpus Development, Disparity Analysis, and Natural Language Processing-Based Detection Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- An Evaluation of AI-Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence for inpatient documentation summarization: mixed-methods quality assessment and early real-world experience.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Language matters: Guidance for person-centred diabetes communication in Ireland.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Review
- The Use of Biased Language in the Care of Seriously Ill Children: A Pilot Study.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2026Article
- Identifying Patterns of Stigmatizing Language Use in the Safety Net.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Re-Centering Clinical Documentation in the Age of AI Scribes: Four Aims of the Patient Chart Note.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- How words discredit: A taxonomy of stigmatizing language in the electronic health record.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- Unlocking the Full Potential of Health Care Teams: How Artificial Intelligence Can Help.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Patient Preferences for Plain-Language Alternatives to Medical Jargon in Clinical Notes.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Stigmatizing language in the electronic health record (EHR) may alter treatment plans, transmit biases between clinicians, and alienate patients. However, neither the frequency of stigmatizing language in hospital notes, nor whether clinicians disproportionately use it in describing patients in particular demographic subgroups are known. Objective: To examine the prevalence of stigmatizing language in hospital admission notes and the patient and clinician characteristics associated with the use of such language. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of admission notes used natural language processing on 48 651 admission notes written about 29 783 unique patients by 1932 clinicians at a large, urban academic medical center between January to December 2018. The admission notes included 8738 notes about 4309 patients with diabetes written by 1204 clinicians; 6197 notes about 3058 patients with substance use disorder by 1132 clinicians; and 5176 notes about 2331 patients with chronic pain by 1056 clinicians. Statistical analyses were performed between May and September 2021. Exposures: Patients' demographic characteristics (age, race and ethnicity, gender, and preferred language); clinicians' characteristics (gender, postgraduate year [PGY], and credential [physician vs advanced practice clinician]). Main Outcome and Measures: Binary indicator for any vs no stigmatizing language; frequencies of specific stigmatizing words. Linear probability models were the main measure, and logistic regression and odds ratios were used for sensitivity analyses and further exploration. Results: The sample included notes on 29 783 patients with a mean (SD) age of 46.9 (27.6) years. Of these patients, 1033 (3.5%) were non-Hispanic Asian, 2498 (8.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, 18 956 (63.6%) were non-Hispanic White, 17 334 (58.2%) were female, and 2939 (9.9%) preferred a language other than English. Of all admission notes, 1197 (2.5%) contained stigmatizing language. The diagnosis-specific stigmatizing language was present in 599 notes (6.9%) for patients with diabetes, 209 (3.4%) for patients with substance use disorders, and 37 (0.7%) for patients with chronic pain. In the whole sample, notes about non-Hispanic Black patients vs non-Hispanic White patients had a 0.67 (95% CI, 0.15 to 1.18) percentage points greater probability of containing stigmatizing language, with similar disparities in all 3 diagnosis-specific subgroups. Greater diabetes severity and the physician-author being less advanced in their training was associated with more stigmatizing language. A 1 point increase in the diabetes severity index was associated with a 1.23 (95% CI, .23 to 2.23) percentage point greater probability of a note containing stigmatizing language. In the sample restricted to physicians, a higher PGY was associated with less use of stigmatizing language overall (-0.05 percentage points/PGY [95% CI, -0.09 to -0.01]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, stigmatizing language in hospital notes varied by medical condition and was more often used to describe non-Hispanic Black patients. Training clinicians to minimize stigmatizing language in the EHR might improve patient-clinician relationships and reduce the transmission of bias between clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.