ArticleJournal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN2025
Patient Disability Status and the Use of Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Notes During Hospital Admission for Birth.
Article in Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the association between patient disability status and use of stigmatizing language in clinical notes from the hospital admission for birth.
designCross-sectional study of electronic health record data.
settingTwo urban hospitals in the northeastern United States.
participantsPatients at more than 20 weeks gestation admitted for birth from 2017 to 2019 (N = 19,094).
methodsWe used a natural language processing algorithm to identify categories of stigmatizing language used in free-text clinical notes (N = 211,841 unique clinical notes). We employed multivariable logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each stigmatizing language category by disability status, which we determined by ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision) codes.
resultsApproximately 3% of patient records (n = 550) included ICD-10 codes for disability. Clinicians were more likely to use stigmatizing language for patients with disabilities compared with patients without disabilities (aOR = 1.75, 95% CI = [1.47, 2.09]). For patients with disabilities compared with patients without disabilities, clinicians were also more likely to use stigmatizing language in the difficult patient category (aOR = 1.96, 95% CI = [1.65, 2.33]) and the unilateral/authoritarian decisions category (aOR = 1.27, 95% CI = [1.06, 1.53]). We found no significant differences for the marginalized language/identities category by patient disability status (aOR = 1.19, 95% CI = [0.87, 1.62]).
conclusionThe use of stigmatizing language in birth hospitalization notes differed by patient disability status. Stigmatizing language should be used as a marker of bias and an opportunity for clinicians to reflect on their thoughts, words, and actions. Patient-centered documentation and care practices are needed to improve perinatal health for all.
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.