Cited by 239Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareObesity and Health PracticesEmpathy and Medical Education

Physician Use of Stigmatizing Language in Patient Medical Records

Open access
Park, Jenny, Saha, Somnath, Chee, Brant, Taylor, Janiece, Beach, Mary Catherine·2021·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Negative attitudes toward patients can adversely impact health care quality and contribute to health disparities. Stigmatizing language written in a patient's medical record can perpetuate negative attitudes and influence decision-making of clinicians subsequently caring for that patient. Objective: To identify and describe physician language in patient health records that may reflect, or engender in others, negative and positive attitudes toward the patient. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study analyzed randomly selected encounter notes from electronic medical records in the ambulatory internal medicine setting at an urban academic medical center. The 600 encounter notes were written by 138 physicians in 2017. Data were analyzed in 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Common linguistic characteristics reflecting an overall positive or negative attitude toward the patient. Results: A total of 138 clinicians wrote encounter notes about 507 patients. Of these patients, 350 (69%) were identified as female, 406 (80%) were identified as Black/African American, and 76 (15%) were identified as White. Of 600 encounter notes included in this study, there were 5 major themes representing negative language and 6 themes representing positive language. The majority of negative language was not explicit and generally fell into one or more of the following categories: (1) questioning patient credibility, (2) expressing disapproval of patient reasoning or self-care, (3) stereotyping by race or social class, (4) portraying the patient as difficult, and (5) emphasizing physician authority over the patient. Positive language was more often more explicit and included (1) direct compliments, (2) expressions of approval, (3) self-disclosure of the physician's own positive feelings toward the patient, (4) minimization of blame, (5) personalization, and (6) highlighting patient authority for their own decisions. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study found that physicians express negative and positive attitudes toward patients when documenting in the medical record. Although often not explicit, this language could potentially transmit bias and affect the quality of care that patients subsequently receive. These findings suggest that increased physician awareness when writing and reading medical records is needed to prevent the perpetuation of negative bias in medical care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.17052

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data drift could affect automated gold label generation, making evaluation unreliable.

    “In these cases, data drift could affect the automated gold label generation thus making the evaluation unreliable (e.g., if there is an increase in obese patients, the increased general negativity present in the clinical notes of obese patients 22,23 , could negatively impact the accuracy of gold labels created by neural language models).”

    From Empirical data drift detection experiments on real-world medical imaging data (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says that people with obesity may be viewed negatively by health professionals, and the Discussion describes negative language in patient records. The paper does not establish that notes about patients with obesity are more negative than other notes. Data drift and unreliable automated gold labels are the citing authors’ proposed consequence, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Park, J., Saha, S., Chee, B., Taylor, J., & Beach, M. C.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Beach, Mary Catherine
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2021-07-14
Volume
4
Issue
7
Pages
e2117052
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3180412891
Cited by
239
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 2
FWCI
37.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (K24 DA037804)
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (75750)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA037804, K24DA037804)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
stigmatizing language, clinical documentation, racial stereotyping, health disparities, implicit bias, physician-patient relationship, electronic health records
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Emotions, Female, Humans, Internal Medicine, Language, Linguistics, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Quality of Health Care, Stereotyping, Qualitative Research, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review