Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38941299›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Identifying stigmatizing language in clinical documentation: A scoping review of emerging literature.

Veronica Barcelona, Danielle Scharp, Betina R Idnay, Hans Moen, Kenrick Cato, Maxim Topaz

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Understanding Stigmatizing Language Lexicons: A Comparative Analysis in Clinical Contexts.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

6 authors.

Veronica BarcelonaColumbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3070-1716
Danielle ScharpColumbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States of America.
Betina R IdnayDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Hans MoenDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, Aalto, Finland.
Kenrick CatoUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Maxim TopazColumbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRacism and implicit bias underlie disparities in health care access, treatment, and outcomes. An emerging area of study in examining health disparities is the use of stigmatizing language in the electronic health record (EHR).

objectivesWe sought to summarize the existing literature related to stigmatizing language documented in the EHR. To this end, we conducted a scoping review to identify, describe, and evaluate the current body of literature related to stigmatizing language and clinician notes.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Embase databases in May 2022, and also conducted a hand search of IEEE to identify studies investigating stigmatizing language in clinical documentation. We included all studies published through April 2022. The results for each search were uploaded into EndNote X9 software, de-duplicated using the Bramer method, and then exported to Covidence software for title and abstract screening.

resultsStudies (N = 9) used cross-sectional (n = 3), qualitative (n = 3), mixed methods (n = 2), and retrospective cohort (n = 1) designs. Stigmatizing language was defined via content analysis of clinical documentation (n = 4), literature review (n = 2), interviews with clinicians (n = 3) and patients (n = 1), expert panel consultation, and task force guidelines (n = 1). Natural language processing was used in four studies to identify and extract stigmatizing words from clinical notes. All of the studies reviewed concluded that negative clinician attitudes and the use of stigmatizing language in documentation could negatively impact patient perception of care or health outcomes. DISCUSSION: The current literature indicates that NLP is an emerging approach to identifying stigmatizing language documented in the EHR. NLP-based solutions can be developed and integrated into routine documentation systems to screen for stigmatizing language and alert clinicians or their supervisors. Potential interventions resulting from this research could generate awareness about how implicit biases affect communication patterns and work to achieve equitable health care for diverse populations.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsHumansLanguageRacismStereotyping

Identifiers

PMID38941299
PMCPMC11213326

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.