ArticlePatient education and counseling2026
How words discredit: A taxonomy of stigmatizing language in the electronic health record.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Patient Experiences of Disrespectful or Judgmental Language in Medical Records.JAMA network open · 2026Article
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
objectiveLanguage in electronic health records (EHRs) can transmit stigma, discrediting patients in ways that undermine the clinician-patient relationship and compromise future care. We sought to develop a taxonomy of stigmatizing language in EHRs to understand what patients are being stigmatized for, how that stigma is conveyed linguistically, and why.
methodsWe conducted a two-stage qualitative analysis of EHR notes from multiple clinical contexts in a large U.S. academic health system. For both stages, we drew enriched samples using natural language processing (NLP) to identify notes with at least one stigmatizing keyword from prior studies. First, we open coded 296 notes to generate categories of stigmatizing language and linguistic mechanisms, and to develop a preliminary taxonomy. We then applied and refined this framework by coding 400 additional notes.
resultsWe identified six categories of stigmatizing sentiments characterizing patients as: (1) Socially Undesirable, (2) Difficult to Interact With, (3) Incompetent, (4) Manipulative, (5) Noncompliant, and (6) Not Credible. These were implied through negative descriptions of patient behavior portraying them as, e.g., Demanding, Adversarial, Deceptive, etc. Linguistic mechanisms extended beyond keywords, including practices for emphasizing the intensity of patient behavior (e.g., intensifiers), marking distance or divergence from the patient's perspective (e.g., skeptical evidentials), and casting the clinician as the neutral or rational party (e.g., euphemisms).
conclusionStigmatizing language in EHRs is not limited to discrete terms but is embedded in broader linguistic practices that shape how patients are represented and understood, particularly those describing how they fail to align with clinical expectations. This language may serve to document professional challenges, but it nonetheless reinforces paternalistic norms and compromises care. Understanding these dynamics is critical for moving toward patient-centered documentation and reducing harm in the EHR.
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.