Manon Baehler, E. Jeannot, D. Lidsky, Gilles Merminod, C. Dickson, O. Simon
{"title":"“Disorder” versus “Abuse”? Exploratory Data on Stigmatizing Terminology among Medical Students at a Swiss University","authors":"Manon Baehler, E. Jeannot, D. Lidsky, Gilles Merminod, C. Dickson, O. Simon","doi":"10.3390/psychiatryint4020012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study of wording and its impact on medical practice is key for the training of future physicians. Negative, imprecise, and disrespectful terms are still widespread in the medical field and contribute to the stigmatization of people in treatment, which ultimately limits their access to care. In this study, we explore the feasibility and acceptability of a method to investigate medical students’ perceptions of wording and stigma. This method involves a questionnaire that medical students complete after having read a clinical vignette. One of the two versions of the vignette is made available, which only varies in the way the patient is referred to (“substance abuser” vs. “having a substance use disorder”). Medical students from the University of Lausanne between their first and sixth year were contacted via the university’s mailing lists. They were randomly exposed to one of the two versions of the vignette and responded to the questionnaire online. This exploratory study shows that it is feasible and acceptable to assess the influence and perceptions of stigmatizing terminology among students through a vignette-based questionnaire comparing two wording options. In line with the initial study, we find trends in favor of the non-stigmatizing terminology; however, beliefs are widely held about the need for judicial “punishment” to address consumption behavior. No statistically significant differences are found between the two groups. The study of wording and its impact on access to care is a crucial issue which seems necessary to integrate into pre-graduate training. It permits the deconstruction of prejudices related to medical knowledge and offers perspectives for intervention and research to improve the right to health, which includes the fundamental right to access to care.","PeriodicalId":93808,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry international","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint4020012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The study of wording and its impact on medical practice is key for the training of future physicians. Negative, imprecise, and disrespectful terms are still widespread in the medical field and contribute to the stigmatization of people in treatment, which ultimately limits their access to care. In this study, we explore the feasibility and acceptability of a method to investigate medical students’ perceptions of wording and stigma. This method involves a questionnaire that medical students complete after having read a clinical vignette. One of the two versions of the vignette is made available, which only varies in the way the patient is referred to (“substance abuser” vs. “having a substance use disorder”). Medical students from the University of Lausanne between their first and sixth year were contacted via the university’s mailing lists. They were randomly exposed to one of the two versions of the vignette and responded to the questionnaire online. This exploratory study shows that it is feasible and acceptable to assess the influence and perceptions of stigmatizing terminology among students through a vignette-based questionnaire comparing two wording options. In line with the initial study, we find trends in favor of the non-stigmatizing terminology; however, beliefs are widely held about the need for judicial “punishment” to address consumption behavior. No statistically significant differences are found between the two groups. The study of wording and its impact on access to care is a crucial issue which seems necessary to integrate into pre-graduate training. It permits the deconstruction of prejudices related to medical knowledge and offers perspectives for intervention and research to improve the right to health, which includes the fundamental right to access to care.
研究措辞及其对医疗实践的影响是培养未来医生的关键。负面的、不准确的和不尊重的术语在医疗领域仍然普遍存在,并导致接受治疗的人受到污名化,最终限制了他们获得护理的机会。在本研究中,我们探讨了一种方法的可行性和可接受性来调查医学生的措辞和污名的看法。这种方法包括一份调查问卷,医学生在阅读临床小短文后完成。两种版本中的一种是可用的,它只是在病人被提及的方式上有所不同(“药物滥用者”与“有药物使用障碍”)。洛桑大学(University of Lausanne)一年级到六年级的医学生通过学校的邮件列表联系。他们随机接触到两个版本的小插图中的一个,并在网上回答问卷。本探索性研究表明,通过基于小插图的问卷比较两种措辞选择来评估学生对污名化术语的影响和看法是可行和可接受的。与最初的研究一致,我们发现了有利于非污名化术语的趋势;然而,人们普遍认为需要司法“惩罚”来解决消费行为。两组间无统计学差异。研究措辞及其对获得护理的影响是一个关键问题,似乎有必要将其纳入研究生预科培训。它允许解构与医学知识有关的偏见,并为干预和研究提供观点,以改善健康权,其中包括获得保健的基本权利。