Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35084481›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Examination of Stigmatizing Language in the Electronic Health Record.

Gracie Himmelstein, David Bates, Li Zhou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Understanding Stigmatizing Language Lexicons: A Comparative Analysis in Clinical Contexts.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. From language matters to stigma-free communication in diabetes: Evolution, challenges, and next steps.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Language matters: Guidance for person-centred diabetes communication in Ireland.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
    Review
  15. The Use of Biased Language in the Care of Seriously Ill Children: A Pilot Study.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Gracie HimmelsteinOffice of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey.
David BatesDivision of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Li ZhouDivision of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Scientific and Technical Computing CoreP2CHD047879 · NICHD · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI SALGANIK, MATTHEW J. · 2014 to 2018
$2.0M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD047879
6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelLanguageStereotypingAcademic Medical CentersAdultCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNatural Language ProcessingPhysicians

Identifiers

PMID35084481
PMCPMC8796019

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.