ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Hospital-Based Clinicians' Knowledge and Practices Regarding Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation: A Multicenter Survey.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
backgroundStigmatizing language is common in the medical record and can perpetuate bias, which has downstream effects on clinical decision-making and patient care. Internal medicine faculty, residents, and advanced practice providers (APPs) are front-line clinicians for composing documentation, and faculty and APPs are also tasked with providing trainees with feedback and training on best documentation practices. However, resident, APP, and faculty preparedness to address stigmatizing language in documentation is unknown. Furthermore, little is known about clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding such language.
objectiveWe sought to understand resident, APP, and faculty experiences, values, and beliefs around stigmatizing language in clinical documentation.
designWe conducted a cross-sectional online survey and knowledge test.
participantsInternal medicine residents, faculty, and APPs within two large academic internal medicine departments. MAIN MEASURES: The knowledge test measured participants' ability to identify stigmatizing language in snippets of documentation and the survey measured attitudes and perceived skills via a series of Likert-style questions. KEY
resultsIn total, 82 faculty/APPs (72 faculty and 10 APPs; 52% response rate) and 63 residents (21% response rate) responded. Nearly all respondents reported considering how their word choices impact patients (91% of faculty/APPs [n = 74] and 92% of residents [n = 58]) and other clinicians (90% of faculty/APPs [n = 73] and 84% of residents [n = 53]). However, only 10% (n = 8) of faculty/APPs and 24% (n = 15) of residents were confident that their clinical documentation avoided stigmatizing language. Only 4% (n = 3) of faculty/APPs and 3% (n = 2) of residents correctly identified all 11 stigmatizing terms assessed on the knowledge test.
conclusionsFaculty/APPs and residents at our institutions value the importance of patient-centered language, yet they lack knowledge and skills around this topic, highlighting key opportunities for future targeted educational and systems-level interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42844549What 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.