ArticleBMC medical education2025
"You're not taught to think about the words you use and then it just perpetuates"- a qualitative examination of medical students' perspectives of stigmatising language in healthcare.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hospital-Based Clinicians' Knowledge and Practices Regarding Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation: A Multicenter Survey.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- (Co)Creating Cultures of Good Treatment in Health Education: What Actions Does the Community Propose?Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Co-Design With Mothers and Professionals to Enhance Care for Mothers Experiencing Adversity: Development of the METIC Model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- A Hand to Hold.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Exploring Nursing and Medical Students' Experiences of Handling Challenging Conversations: A Qualitative Focus Group Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStigmatising language is used commonly in healthcare, affecting healthcare providers' perceptions of patients and care delivery. Using person-first language is best practice, however, it does not reflect reality.
methodThis study examined medical students' perspectives on stigmatising language in healthcare. Twenty-one medical students at the RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences participated in four focus group interviews; a thematic analysis of the data was conducted.
resultsSeven themes were identified: prevalence of stigmatising language, its impact on students and patients, being sensitive versus medically accurate, evolving nature of recommendations for language use, barriers to changing practice, power dynamics and cultural context influencing language use, stigmatising language being a societal issue. Participants provided recommendations for improving language use in healthcare: open discussions and student feedback on language in the learning environment, lecturers signposting person-first language, training workshops on person-first language for clinicians and lecturers, and social intelligence skills training.
conclusionStudy findings highlight the impact of stigmatising language in healthcare. To address this issue and inform guidance for future generations of professionals, medical students recommended more open dialogue and improved social intelligence.
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.