Xu Site, Sun Mu
Department of Statistics, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
J Patient Exp. 2025 Jan 31;12:23743735251314843. doi: 10.1177/23743735251314843. eCollection 2025.
With the rise of feminism, women report experiencing doubt or discrimination in medical settings. This study aims to explore the linguistic mechanisms by which physicians express disbelief toward patients and to investigate gender differences in the use of negative medical descriptions. A content analysis of 285 electronic medical records was conducted to identify 4 linguistic bias features: judging, reporting, quoting, and fudging. Sentiment classification and knowledge graph with ICD-11 were used to determine the prevalence of these features in the medical records, and logistic regression was applied to test gender differences. A total of 2354 descriptions were analyzed, with 64.7% of the patients identified as male. Descriptions of female patients contained fewer judgmental linguistic features but more fudging-related linguistic features compared to male patients (judging: OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54-0.88, < 0.01; fudging: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.09-1.75, < 0.01). No significant differences were found in the use of reporting (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.61-1.47, = 0.81) and quoting (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72-1.36, = 0.96) between male and female patients. This study highlights how physicians may express disbelief toward patients through linguistic biases, particularly through the use of judging and fudging language. Both male and female patients may face different types of systematic bias from physicians, with female patients experiencing more fudging-related language and less judgmental language compared to male patients. These differences point to a potential mechanism through which gender disparities in healthcare quality may arise, underscoring the need for further investigation and action to address these biases.
随着女权主义的兴起,女性报告称在医疗环境中经历过怀疑或歧视。本研究旨在探索医生对患者表示怀疑的语言机制,并调查负面医疗描述使用中的性别差异。对285份电子病历进行了内容分析,以识别4种语言偏见特征:评判、报告、引用和捏造。使用情感分类和国际疾病分类第11版知识图谱来确定这些特征在病历中的普遍程度,并应用逻辑回归来检验性别差异。共分析了2354条描述,其中64.7%的患者被确定为男性。与男性患者相比,女性患者的描述中评判性语言特征较少,但与捏造相关的语言特征较多(评判:优势比0.69,95%置信区间0.54 - 0.88,<0.01;捏造:优势比1.38,95%置信区间1.09 - 1.75,<0.01)。男性和女性患者在报告(优势比0.95,95%置信区间0.61 - 1.47,=0.81)和引用(优势比0.99,95%置信区间0.72 - 1.36,=0.96)的使用上没有显著差异。本研究强调了医生可能如何通过语言偏见,特别是通过使用评判和捏造语言来表达对患者的怀疑。男性和女性患者都可能面临来自医生的不同类型的系统性偏见,与男性患者相比,女性患者经历的与捏造相关的语言更多,评判性语言更少。这些差异指出了医疗质量性别差异可能产生的潜在机制,强调需要进一步调查并采取行动来解决这些偏见。