BACKGROUND: Stigmatizing language or non-person-centered language (non-PCL) has been shown to impact patients negatively, especially in the case of obesity. This has led many associations, such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), to enact guidelines prohibiting the use of stigmatizing language in medical research. In 2018, the AMA adopted person-centered language (PCL) guidelines, including a specific obesity amendment to which all researchers should adhere. However, little research has been conducted to determine if these guidelines are being followed.
OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine if PCL guidelines specific to obesity have been properly followed in the sports medicine journals that are interacted with most frequently.
METHODS: We searched within PubMed for obesity-related articles between 2019 and 2022 published in the top 10 most-interacted sports medicine journals based on Google Metrics data. A predetermined list of stigmatizing and non-PCL terms/language was searched within each article.
RESULTS: A total of 198 articles were sampled, of which 58.6 % were found to be not compliant with PCL guidelines. The most common non-PCL terms were \"obese\" utilized in 49.5 % of articles, followed by \"overweight\" as the next most common stigmatizing term at 40.4 %. Stigmatizing labels such as \"heavy, heavier, heaviness,\" \"fat\" as an adjective, and \"morbid\" appeared in articles but at a lower rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that there is a severe lack of adherence to PCL guidelines in the most-interacted sports medicine journals. Negative associations between stigmatizing language and individuals with obesity will only persist if a greater effort is not made to change this. All journals, including the most prestigious ones, should adopt and execute PCL guidelines to prevent the spread of demeaning language in the medical community.

More than 20 years ago, the Drug and Drug Problems Perception Questionnaire (DDPPQ) was developed to examine healthcare providers\' attitudes and perceptions towards individuals who use drugs. In alignment with recommended terminology respectful of this patient population, the 20-item measure was revised using person-centered language. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the person-centered DDPPQ (PC-DDPPQ) version among undergraduate nursing students.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine the PC-DDPPQ factor structure using a cross-sectional design. A convenience sample of 400 students from two nursing schools located in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the US participated in the study. The sample (N = 400) was divided equally between the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
After applying principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblique (Promax) rotation, the EFA yielded a five-factor, 20-item structure that explained 70.0% of the variance. The CFA revealed that the final model, derived from the EFA, which yielded a 19-item, five-factor structure adequately fit the data (Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.959, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.951 and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058).
Except for one item (item #14), the five-factor structure aligned with the original 20-item version. This study contributes to promoting the use of a more appropriate and less stigmatizing language among healthcare providers working with patients who use drugs.

Person-centered language places a person\'s identity before any disability or medical condition they may have. Using person-centered language reduces stigma and improves the patient-physician relationship, potentially optimizing health outcomes. Patients with psoriasis often feel stigmatized due to their chronic skin condition.
We seek to evaluate the use of person-centered language in psoriasis literature and to explore whether certain article characteristics were associated with non-person-centered language.
We performed a systematic search on PubMed for recently published articles in journals that regularly publish psoriasis studies. After article reduction procedures, randomization, and screening, we reached our target sample of 400 articles. The following non-person-centered language terms were extracted from each article: \"Psoriasis Patient,\" \"Psoriasis subject,\" \"Affected with,\" \"Sufferer,\" \"Suffering from,\" \"Burdened with,\" \"Afflicted with,\" and \"Problems with.\" Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked duplicate fashion.
Of the 400 included articles, 272 (68%) were not adherent to person-centered language guidelines according to the American Medical Association Manual of Style. The most frequent non-person-centered language term was \"Psoriasis Patient,\" found in 174 (43.5%) articles. The stigmatizing language was associated with the type of article and funding status, with original investigations and funded studies having higher rates of stigmatizing language.
Articles about psoriasis commonly use non-person-centered language terms. It is important to shift away from using stigmatizing language about patients with psoriasis to avoid potential untoward influences. We recommend using \"patients with psoriasis\" or \"patient living with psoriasis\" to emphasize the importance of person-centered care.

Parents with substance use disorders are highly stigmatized by multiple systems (e.g., healthcare, education, legal, social). As a result, they are more likely to experience discrimination and health inequities [1, 2]. Children of parents with substance use disorders often do not fare any better, as they frequently experience stigma and poorer outcomes by association [3, 4]. Calls to action for person-centered language for alcohol and other drug problems have led to improved terminology [5-8]. Despite a long history of stigmatizing, offensive labels such as \"children of alcoholics\" and \"crack babies,\" children have been left out of person-centered language initiatives. Children of parents with substance use disorders can feel invisible, shameful, isolated, and forgotten-particularly in treatment settings when programming is centered on the parent [9, 10]. Person-centered language is shown to improve treatment outcomes and reduce stigma [11, 12]. Therefore, we need to adhere to consistent, non-stigmatizing terminology when referencing children of parents with substance use disorders. Most importantly, we must center the voices and preferences of those with lived experience to enact meaningful change and effective resource allocation.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in children and often goes untreated. A major barrier to treatment is the stigma surrounding the disorder, including from the educational and scientific community. Person-centered language (PCL) is associated with positive health outcomes, and its implementation is recommended by multiple professional groups, but its use has not been quantified for ADHD.
The goal of this study is to quantify the adherence to PCL among ADHD-related journal publications utilizing a cross-sectional study design.
We conducted a cross-sectional examination including a systematic search of PubMed, which encompasses MEDLINE, for ADHD-related articles from January 2014 to March 2021. All journals with at least 20 ADHD-related search returns, human research, and in the English language were included, totaling 5,308 articles from 88 journals. Articles were randomized, and the first 500 were screened for inclusion of prespecified, non-PCL terminology. After exclusion, 311 articles were retained.
Of the 311 retained articles, 131 (42.1%) adhered to PCL guidelines. Among articles with non-PCL, stigmatizing language such as \"problem(s) with [the/a] child or problem child\" and \"suffers from\" was found most frequently- occurring in 47.6% (148/311) and 5.8% (18/311) of the articles, respectively. We found no significant association between PCL adherence and study characteristics.
Our findings revealed that over half of the current ADHD literature did not adhere to PCL guidelines. Adherence to PCL by the scientific and medical community will increase the overall efforts to mitigate stigma and increase support for individuals with ADHD.

Amputations are routine in orthopedics, specifically during trauma and when patients have recurrent surgical site infections. When undergoing amputations, patients must combat the psychosocial factors associated with the loss of an extremity, including stigmatization.
This study analyzes the presence of person-centered language (PCL) within amputation-related orthopedic publications in the top orthopedic journals.
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis with a database search on February 14, 2021 utilizing PubMed. Utilizing a previously published search string, we isolated studies that were published in the top 20 orthopedic journals based on the Google h5-index. In addition to the top 20 orthopedic journals, we included the top two hand and foot & ankle journals in our search to incorporate more amputation literature. Our search yielded 687 returns. The sample was then randomized, and the first 300 studies that fit our inclusion criteria were examined for prespecified non-PCL terminology.
Our results show that 157 (52.2%) studies were adherent to PCL according to the American Medical Association\'s Manual of Style 10th Edition (AMAMS). Of the 143 (47.7%) studies that were not adherent to PCL, 51 studies (35.7%) had more than one type of non-PCL language. The term \"amputee,\" which is being labeled as identity-first language (IFL), was found in 101 articles (33.7%). Further investigation found that 73.3% (74/101) of the studies containing IFL were found to have other non-PCL terms. Of the other studies in the sample, non-PCL was found 34.7% (88/199) of the time. This analysis was done due to the discrepancies in stigmatization of the term \"amputee.\" No statistical association was found between adherence to PCL and study characteristics.
Our findings show that amputation literature within the top orthopedic journals has limited adherence to PCL. Additionally, the use of the term \"amputee,\" which is widely accepted by the amputation community, resulted in a greater rate of non-PCL terminology within orthopedic amputation literature. Efforts should be implemented within orthopedics to avoid the use of stigmatizing language, regarding individuals that underwent amputations, to minimize psychosocial stressors.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a lifelong illness affecting many individuals in the United States. Proper management of SCD is imperative, however, the unpredictability of pain crises may lead to frequent emergency department (ED) visits. This SCD feature has led to health-related stigmatization via labels and other terminology within clinical settings, which may be translated through medical research. Thus, it is important for medical literature to adhere to person-centered language (PCL) to diminish such stigmas from transcending into the clinical setting.
Our aim was to determine current adherence to PCL related to individuals with SCD in existing literature.
This was a cross-sectional design study. Published studies on SCD that used human participants were selected between January 1, 2015 and April 14, 2021. Two investigators performed screening and data procedures in a masked, duplicate fashion, with conflicts and discrepancies resolved via an arbiter. χ2 Tests and linear and logistic regressions were used for data analysis.
After excluding editorials and commentaries, 200 articles were retained. We found that 186 publications (94%) adhered to PCL. Among articles with non-PCL, labeling occurred in 2 articles (1%) and emotional language implying suffering was identified in 10 articles (5%).
Our study suggests a widespread adherence to PCL in recent SCD literature. However, findings suggest a major disconnect between education and practice, as recent publications document the use of non-PCL terminology within EDs. Health care providers should be aware of biases and institutional resources should be allocated toward raising awareness.

Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) affects approximately 1% of the population. Despite the prevalence of OUD, it remains a highly stigmatized disorder. Using person-centered language (PCL) - and thereby emphasizing the significance of the person rather than their diagnosis - is a potential strategy to reduce stigma in medical research related to addiction. Thus, we aimed to determine adherence to PCL in OUD-related publications according to the American Medical Association\'s guidelines.
We performed a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2020 using the PubMed database. Articles were randomized and screened until we reached 300 articles that met inclusion criteria. Three-hundred articles were screened to meet this goal. Articles were then screened for non-PCL terms, determined a priori.
The majority (240/300; 80 %) of OUD-related publications were not adherent to the AMA guidelines on PCL. Additionally, the use of emotional language (i.e. suffer, afflicted, etc.) was employed in 48 % (145/300) of articles. Stigmatizing terminology was found in 73 % (218/300) of the OUD related articles in this study. Our study demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between senior author affiliation and adherence to reporting guidelines (i.e., PRISMA, STROBE, etc.).
A majority of OUD-related publications are not adherent to AMA guidelines on PCL. Language used in these publications is often repeated and replicated in medical education and clinical practice, which directly impacts patient-provider relationships. PCL-adherent language is a tool that both medical researchers and clinicians can use to combat stigma that individuals with OUD may experience.

BACKGROUND: Person-centered language (PCL) is the recommended method of addressing patients by the American Medical Association Manual of Style in medical research, thus requiring published manuscripts to be free of non-PCL. Although individuals, communities, and organizations have the autonomy to use non-PCL, it is imperative for medical researchers to use PCL in an effort to reduce the transfer of stigmatization into clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: To determine current adherence to PCL related to individuals with limb or digit amputations in scientific journals.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed by systematically searching PubMed from May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2020 for publications focused on amputations. Journals with less than 20 articles were excluded, and remaining publications were randomized, with the first 500 articles selected. Articles were screened for inclusion criteria, and data were extracted in masked, duplicate fashion, for predetermined non-PCL terms. A chi-squared test and logistic regression were used to quantify PCL adherence study characteristics.
RESULTS: Of 500 articles, 81 were excluded, and 419 articles from 13 journals were examined-64.6% containing non-PCL. The most common non-PCL terms used were \"amputee\" in 148 articles and \"limb loss\" in 138 articles. PCL was significantly associated with article type, research funding, and journal requirements for PCL.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that one-third of research articles were PCL-adherent, which we speculate may contribute to the stigma that individuals with amputations experience. Our findings suggest that PCL adherence is higher among surgery research and lower among engineering and prosthetic research.