| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
===2022: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628222000103 Reducing stigma triggered by assessing smoking status among patients diagnosed with lung cancer: De-stigmatizing do and don't lessons learned from qualitative interviews]=== | ===2022: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772628222000103 Reducing stigma triggered by assessing smoking status among patients diagnosed with lung cancer: De-stigmatizing do and don't lessons learned from qualitative interviews]=== | ||
*Patients expressed clear preferences for CCPS to refrain from using judgmental labels when assessing smoking history, including a preference for questions such as ''' “have you smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days” rather than “are you a smoker?” '''. This perspective is consistent with the broader clinical efforts and dissemination of resources to reduce illness-related stigma through the increased use of person-first language and other bias-free language in clinical care and research. | *Patients expressed clear preferences for CCPS to refrain from using judgmental labels when assessing smoking history, including a preference for questions such as ''' “have you smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days” rather than “are you a smoker?” '''. This perspective is consistent with the broader clinical efforts and dissemination of resources to reduce illness-related stigma through the increased use of person-first language and other bias-free language in clinical care and research. | ||
===2022: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9238180/ Internalized stigma among cancer patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial: The role of cancer type and associations with psychological distress]=== | |||
*To balance these factors, complementary campaigns can address the role of media and the tobacco industry in promoting smoking, making it clear that smoking is not solely driven by personal decision making, emphasize that smoking is a physical and behavioral addiction and not a personal moral failing, '''use person-first language (people who smoke vs. smokers)''', emphasize the positive benefits of quitting, and acknowledge that quitting is difficult and may take multiple tries but there are treatment strategies that can help. | |||
===2020: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7733058/ Changing the Language of How We Measure and Report Smoking Status: Implications for Reducing Stigma, Restoring Dignity, and Improving the Precision of Scientific Communication]=== | ===2020: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7733058/ Changing the Language of How We Measure and Report Smoking Status: Implications for Reducing Stigma, Restoring Dignity, and Improving the Precision of Scientific Communication]=== | ||
*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 | *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] | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
edits