ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Words Matter: Content Analysis of Language Used When Documenting in the Medical Records of Patients in Mental Health.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biased healthcare documentation adversely impacts patient outcomes, by affecting providers' perceptions. Identifying stigmatizing language is crucial for appropriate workforce training. Purpose: To identify, describe, and compare language patterns used in medical records of individuals with mental illness. Methods: Patient encounters within the sole Qatari mental health governmental provider were randomly selected. Rich-text notes documented by any of eight eligible healthcare fields, written October-December/2021, and taking place during outpatient, inpatient, or community-homecare encounters were analyzed qualitatively for positive and negative language, and quantitatively for the percentage of notes with language types/subtypes. Association between language and patient/provider characteristics was tested using Goodness-of-fit chi2 and Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Results: Of 300 notes, most included potentially stigmatizing language (62.7%). Disability-first and inappropriate treatment-related language were the top isolated subtypes (33.22% and 31.31% of negative notes, respectively). Similarly, 66.67% of notes incorporated positive statements, mainly personalized language (44%). Positive language was statistically associated with specialty, age, diagnosis, discipline, setting, and patient's first language. Stigmatizing language was statistically associated with setting, physician level, and discipline. Conclusion: Content analysis of mental health notes highlighted comparable use of positive and negative language. These findings urge policymakers and educators to advocate for recovery-oriented mental health documentation.
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.