RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Hearing loss represents one of the most common disabilities worldwide. Despite its prevalence, there is a degree of stigmatization within the public's perception of, or attitude toward, individuals diagnosed with hearing loss or deafness. This stigmatization is propagated by the way hearing loss is referenced, especially in writing. Although the medical community is familiar with hearing loss, medical research is not consistently compliant with nonstigmatizing terminology, like person-centered language (PCL). This study aims to quantify the use of PCL in medical research related to hearing loss. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of articles related to hearing loss was performed using PubMed as the primary search engine. The search encompassed articles from January 1, 2016, to November 17, 2020. Journals had to have at least 20 search returns to be included in this study. The primary search resulted in 2392 articles from 31 journals. The sample was then randomized and the first 500 articles were chosen for data extraction. Article screening was performed systematically. Each article was evaluated for predetermined non-PCL terminology to determine adherence to the American Medical Association Manual of Style (AMAMS) guidelines. Articles were included if they involved research with human participants and were available in English. Commentaries and editorials were excluded. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-two articles were included in this study. Results from this study indicate that 326 articles were not adherent to AMAMS guidelines for PCL (326/482; 68%). Emotional language (i.e., burden, suffer, afflicted) was employed to reference hearing loss in 114 articles (114/482; 24%). Non-PCL adherent labels (i.e., impaired and handicapped) were identified in 46% (221/482) of articles related to hearing loss or deafness. Sixty-seven articles (67/482; 14%) used person-first language in reference to the word "deaf" and 15 articles (15/482; 3%) used "deaf" as a label. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings from this cross-sectional analysis, the majority of medical research articles that address hearing loss contain terminology that does not conform to PCL guidelines, as established by AMAMS. Many respected organizations, like the American Medical Association, have encouraged the use of PCL in interactions between patient and medical provider. This encompasses communication in person and in writing. This recommendation stems from the understood role that language plays in how we build impressions of others, especially in a medical context. Implementing PCL to destigmatize language used in reference to deafness or hearing loss is essential to increase advocacy and protect the autonomy of these individuals.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Sordera , Pérdida Auditiva , Estudios Transversales , Sordera/diagnóstico , Humanos , LenguajeRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine current adherence to PCL related to individuals with SCD in existing literature. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Asunto(s)
Anemia de Células Falciformes , Lenguaje , Anemia de Células Falciformes/complicaciones , Anemia de Células Falciformes/terapia , Estudios Transversales , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Humanos , Dolor/etiología , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
As the SARS-CoV-2 virus shares relatively large protein sequences homologous to grass pollens, dust mites, and molds, our objective was to assess the potential overlap between the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna and known allergens. We found 7 common allergens with potential for cross-reactivity with the Pfizer vaccine and 19 with the Moderna vaccine, including common grasses, molds, and dust mites. T-cell mediated antigen cross-reactivity between viruses and allergens is a relatively new area of study in clinical immunology; a discipline that may be particularly useful regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the allergic response in humans. These results suggest that vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines may contribute to T-cell cross-reactivity with allergens that impact allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis. Further research should assess the clinical implications of COVID-19 vaccination on the severity and symptomatology of the allergic disease, in addition to natural viral infection.
RESUMEN
Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterized by recurring wheals that last 6 weeks or longer without an identifiable cause. The estimated point prevalence of CSU worldwide is 1%. Furthermore, it has a significant impact on quality of life in both adults and pediatric patients and their families. Although it is most often a self-limited disease, some patients have urticaria refractory to first-line treatment: second-generation H1 antihistamines. In these patients, the use of targeted monoclonal antibodies is necessary. While omalizumab is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved monoclonal antibody for CSU, others, including ligelizumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, and several orally administered Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, are also promising therapeutics for reducing the morbidity of CSU. Novel therapies, among others discussed here, are rapidly being developed with new trials and therapeutics being released nearly monthly. Thus, we performed a scoping literature review of randomized controlled trials studying targeted therapies for CSU. We also discuss the pathophysiology, diagnosis, prognosis, and future research directions in CSU.
Asunto(s)
Urticaria Crónica , Urticaria , Estados Unidos , Adulto , Humanos , Niño , Urticaria Crónica/diagnóstico , Urticaria Crónica/terapia , Calidad de Vida , Urticaria/diagnóstico , Urticaria/terapia , Omalizumab/uso terapéutico , Anticuerpos Monoclonales/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Aim: News articles and their use of sensational language have the potential to influence health behaviors and decisions, thus the purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of sensational language (i.e., superlatives) describing stem cell therapies in public news articles. Materials & methods: In this study, we conducted a Google News search for news articles using superlatives to exaggerate the efficacy of stem cell therapies. Results: Our analysis included 262 news articles from 193 news outlets using 714 unique superlatives to describe stem cells. Health on the Net's Code of Conduct certification was applied to determine credibility of each site. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the need for improving news reporting surrounding stem cell research and therapies.
Asunto(s)
Lenguaje , Trasplante de Células Madre , Estudios TransversalesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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.). CONCLUSION: 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.