ArticleJAMA network open2025
Stigmatizing and Positive Language in Birth Clinical Notes Associated With Race and Ethnicity.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Association of Hospital Characteristics with Brachial Plexus Birth Injury.Research square · 2026Article
- Patient-reported postoperative pain and stigmatizing language in anesthesia notes: a cross-sectional study (2017-2019).International journal of obstetric anesthesia · 2026Article
- The association between higher body weight and stigmatizing language documented in hospital birth admission notes.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Article
- Patient Disability Status and the Use of Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Notes During Hospital Admission for Birth.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2025Article
- Beyond Keywords: A Qualitative Study of Context-Dependent Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation from a Large, Multi-Payer Home Healthcare Agency.Home health care management & practice · 2025Article
- Documentation of Stigmatizing Language in Electronic Health Records and Birth Outcomes.Health equity · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Language used in clinical documentation can reflect biases, potentially contributing to health disparities. Understanding associations between patient race and ethnicity and documentation of stigmatizing and positive language in clinical notes is crucial for addressing health disparities and improving patient care. Objective: To examine associations of race and ethnicity with stigmatizing and positive language documentation in clinical notes from hospital birth admission. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included birthing patients at 2 metropolitan hospitals in the Northeastern US between 2017 and 2019. Eligible participants were admitted for labor and birth and had at least 1 free-text clinical note. Analysis was conducted using natural language processing. Data were analyzed between March and December 2024. Exposures: Patient race and ethnicity, categorized into mutually exclusive groups of Asian or Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and White. Main Outcome and Measures: Presence of 4 stigmatizing language categories (marginalized language or identities, difficult patient, unilateral or authoritarian decisions, and questioning patient credibility) and 2 positive language categories (preferred and/or autonomy, power and/or privilege). Results: Among the 18 646 patients included in the study (mean [SD] age, 30.5 [6.2] years), 2121 were Black (11.4%), 11 078 were Hispanic (59.4%), and 4270 were White (22.9%). The majority (10 559 patients [56.6%]) were insured by Medicaid. Compared with White patients, Black patients had higher odds of having any stigmatizing language (model 2: odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49; P < .001), after adjustment for demographic characteristics. Black patients also had higher odds of any positive language documented (model 2: OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32; P = .006). Hispanic patients had lower odds of documented positive language (model 2: OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; P = .03). Asian or Pacific Islander patients had lower odds of language documented in the power and/or privilege category (model 2: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study examining clinical notes of 18 646 patients admitted for labor and birth, there were notable disparities in how stigmatizing and positive language was documented across racial and ethnic groups. This underscores the necessity for improving documentation and communication practices to reduce the use of stigmatizing language.
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.