| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
*However, the descriptors we commonly use to classify people who smoke may inadvertently perpetuate harmful, stigmatizing beliefs and negative stereotypes. In recognizing the power of words to either perpetuate or reduce stigma, Dr. Nora Volkow—Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse—recently highlighted the role of stigma in addiction, and the movement encouraging the use of person-first language and eliminating the use of slang and idioms when describing addiction and the people whom it affects. | *However, the descriptors we commonly use to classify people who smoke may inadvertently perpetuate harmful, stigmatizing beliefs and negative stereotypes. In recognizing the power of words to either perpetuate or reduce stigma, Dr. Nora Volkow—Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse—recently highlighted the role of stigma in addiction, and the movement encouraging the use of person-first language and eliminating the use of slang and idioms when describing addiction and the people whom it affects. | ||
*In this commentary, we make an appeal for researchers and clinicians to use person-first language '''(eg, “people who smoke”)''' rather than commonly used labels '''(eg, “smokers”)''' in written (eg, in scholarly reports) and verbal communication (eg, clinical case presentations) to promote greater respect and convey dignity for people who smoke. We assert that the use of precise and bias-free language to describe people who smoke has the potential to reduce smoking-related stigma and may enhance the precision of scientific communication. [emphasis added] | *In this commentary, we make an appeal for researchers and clinicians to use person-first language '''(eg, “people who smoke”)''' rather than commonly used labels '''(eg, “smokers”)''' in written (eg, in scholarly reports) and verbal communication (eg, clinical case presentations) to promote greater respect and convey dignity for people who smoke. We assert that the use of precise and bias-free language to describe people who smoke has the potential to reduce smoking-related stigma and may enhance the precision of scientific communication. [emphasis added] | ||
===2020: [https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4345/htm Stigma and Smoking in the Home: Parents’ Accounts of Using Nicotine Replacement Therapy to Protect Their Children from Second-Hand Smoke]=== | |||
*However, smoking prevalence remains disproportionally high in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. | |||
*Smoking stigma, particularly self-stigma, underpinned accounts, with two overarching themes: interplaying barriers and enablers for creation of a smoke-free home... | |||
*Personal motivation to abstain or stop smoking empowered participants to reduce or quit smoking to resist stigma. For those struggling to believe in their ability to stop smoking, stigma led to negative self-labelling. | |||
*Whilst denormalisation of smoking has been a useful public health tool for reducing smoking rates in the UK, it is arguable that this can lead to unhelpful stigmatisation of already vulnerable disadvantaged groups. | |||
===2018: [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-40480-001 A qualitative review of tobacco research related to public and structural stigma.]=== | ===2018: [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-40480-001 A qualitative review of tobacco research related to public and structural stigma.]=== | ||
edits