ArticleAddiction science & clinical practice2025
"There's a lot of people who love them, so why call 'em junkies?": clinician and patient perspectives about words used to describe people who use drugs.
Article in Addiction science & clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing attention in clinician care to the importance of using person-first language. Clinicians' words can reinforce clinicians' pre-existing stigmas and biases. People who use drugs (PWUD) continue to face stigma from clinicians. Person-first language is a way to reduce stigma and perpetuation of bias.
methodsThrough specific structured in-person interviews, we examined the usage of stigmatizing language in the care of PWUD by surveying key clinicians- such as physicians, nurses, and social workers-and patients who self-identified as PWUD at Tufts Medical Center (Boston, MA) between July 2022-September 2022. Interview guides were created using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0 as a framework. We evaluated perceptions of person-first language and barriers to using person-first language amongst participants. Interviews were coded with Dedoose Software and inductive thematic analysis (ITA) methods were used until all themes were captured; CFIR 2.0 determinants used during interview guide creation were used as preliminary themes and modified as needed.
resultsWe interviewed thirty-four people, including eleven PWUD at time of interview. Most clinicians agreed that language is important and matters when talking to patients and during documentation. Almost all patients agreed that language was important to them and impacted their relationship with their provider. However, there were responders that felt that person-first language was unnecessary, ineffective, and overly verbose in the medical setting. Major barriers to using person-first language were unawareness, lack of formal training, and perceived generational differences in appropriate language.
conclusionAddressing language usage is a critical opportunity to promote inclusion and reduce bias amongst PWUD. As medical charts become increasingly accessible by patients, the use of language by the clinician becomes increasingly important. To create and maintain equitable systems of care, it is important to meet clinicians where they are at and to work with them to address these issues. This can include targeted educational sessions and resources informing clinicians on preferred language use and curriculum for providers-in-training.
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.