Language affects patient experiences. Healthcare professionals' words can enhance or detract from patient care. Several organizations and scholars have published evidence of how language can reflect bias and have recommended the use of person-centered language in healthcare to promote respect, reduce stigma, and enhance patient-centered care. However, we have not found an inclusive language guide that reflects a culturally humble approach, covering multiple patient populations in one document and incorporating feedback from community members. Thus, we created the University of Utah Quick Language Guide (UU Guide), which aims to help healthcare educators and professionals use anti-biased language with students and their patients. This project's goal was to explore community perspectives on the UU Guide and use the community insights to improve it. In January 2024, 20 of the 27 Community Health Workers (CHWs) employed at our institution took part in one of three 1-hour focus groups to discuss the UU Guide's language. Three themes characterized their perspectives on the guide's language: (1) Terms used by academics that are confusing to community members; (2) Terms considered stigmatizing by academics but preferred by community; (3) Medical information considered offensive/controversial by community members. While the guide was created to make healthcare more patient-centered and was well-received overall by CHWs, focus group conversations highlighted challenges with the guide. More community-informed language was needed, and we found certain terms considered inclusive in academic settings were unfamiliar or unclear to CHWs. Our findings also showed how the perception of stigma varies across communities. Our study emphasizes how language is perceived differently among different communities and the importance of context. Moving forward, revisions of the UU Guide must involve the voices of the communities it seeks to serve. Furthermore, fostering a collaborative dialogue between academics, healthcare professionals, and community members will be essential in designing language tools that are respectful and inclusive for patients.
Knight et al. (Sat,) studied this question.