McPherson Kristen A, Reddy Arjun K, Sajjadi Nicholas B, Deboy Kyle, Gajjar Swapnil, Lad Madhuri, Hartwell Micah
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Sex Transm Infect. 2023 Mar;99(2):110-115. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2021-055391. Epub 2022 Apr 22.
We sought to quantify the use of person-centred language (PCL) in research journals that publish high volumes of HIV-related manuscripts.
In this cross-sectional study, we searched PubMed for HIV-related articles published between 1 January 2017 and 7 March 2021. After journal reduction and article randomisation, title and abstract screening was conducted among 500 studies in a masked, duplicate fashion.
Studies that were included were systematically searched for prespecified, stigmatising terms, partial terms and phrases. Prevalence rates of non-person-centred terminology were totalled, and the total number of articles adherent to PCL guidelines were reported. Fisher's exact tests were used to determine associations between PCL adherence and article funding source, type of article, continent of origin and research, among others.
Among 237 studies included, 21.52% (51) of HIV-related publications in this cross-sectional analysis were found to be PCL adherent. Stigmatising labels such as 'HIV- or AIDS-infected' and 'HIV- or AIDS-person or patient' were used most frequently, with the former appearing in 57.38% of articles and the latter appearing in 30.80% of articles.
Despite numerous guidelines and requirements for the use of PCL in research, our findings suggest that an alarming number of HIV-related articles are not following these guidelines. This is concerning because this labelling likely contributes to the persistence of stigma in HIV-centred care. The intentional use of person-centred language in medical research has the potential to minimise the use of stigmatising language among medical professionals, in medical education, in medical records and patient encounters, and thus reduce stigma.
我们试图量化在发表大量与艾滋病病毒相关手稿的研究期刊中以患者为中心语言（PCL）的使用情况。
在这项横断面研究中，我们在PubMed上搜索了2017年1月1日至2021年3月7日期间发表的与艾滋病病毒相关的文章。在期刊筛选和文章随机化之后，以盲法、双人方式对500项研究进行标题和摘要筛选。
对纳入的研究系统地搜索预先指定的污名化术语、部分术语和短语。汇总非以患者为中心术语的患病率，并报告符合PCL指南的文章总数。使用Fisher精确检验来确定PCL依从性与文章资助来源、文章类型、起源大陆和研究等之间的关联。
在纳入的237项研究中，该横断面分析中21.52%（51篇）的与艾滋病病毒相关的出版物被发现符合PCL。诸如“感染艾滋病病毒或艾滋病的”和“艾滋病病毒或艾滋病感染者或患者”等污名化标签使用最为频繁，前者出现在57.38%的文章中，后者出现在30.80%的文章中。
尽管在研究中使用PCL有众多指南和要求，但我们的研究结果表明，数量惊人的与艾滋病病毒相关的文章未遵循这些指南。这令人担忧，因为这种标签可能会导致以艾滋病病毒为中心的护理中耻辱感持续存在。在医学研究中有意使用以患者为中心的语言有可能减少医学专业人员、医学教育、病历和患者诊疗过程中污名化语言的使用，从而减少耻辱感。
