Assessment of Compliance With ASCO Language of Respect Guidelines in Renal Cell Carcinoma Abstracts.

IF 5.5 3区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY JCO oncology practice Pub Date : 2025-11-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-07 DOI:10.1200/OP-24-01039
Nazli Dizman, Ruchi Agarwal, Daniela V Castro, Benjamin Mercier, Xiaochen Li, Regina Barragan-Carrillo, Megan H Wong, Ethan Chan, Akasha Dukkipati, Teebro Paul, Amber Faridi, Jalen Patel, Jaya Goud, Trishita Paul, Malina Ioschici, Zeynep Irem Ozay, Miguel Zugman, Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Alex Chehrazi-Raffle, Tanya B Dorff, Sumanta K Pal, Narjust Florez
{"title":"Assessment of Compliance With ASCO Language of Respect Guidelines in Renal Cell Carcinoma Abstracts.","authors":"Nazli Dizman, Ruchi Agarwal, Daniela V Castro, Benjamin Mercier, Xiaochen Li, Regina Barragan-Carrillo, Megan H Wong, Ethan Chan, Akasha Dukkipati, Teebro Paul, Amber Faridi, Jalen Patel, Jaya Goud, Trishita Paul, Malina Ioschici, Zeynep Irem Ozay, Miguel Zugman, Hedyeh Ebrahimi, Alex Chehrazi-Raffle, Tanya B Dorff, Sumanta K Pal, Narjust Florez","doi":"10.1200/OP-24-01039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The ASCO Language of Respect (LOR) Guidelines were developed in 2020 to promote patient-respectful language in abstracts and presentations. We assessed adherence to LOR guidelines among renal cell carcinoma (RCC) abstracts presented at the 2023 and 2019 ASCO Annual Meetings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically evaluated each statement in all RCC abstracts for compliance with the three clauses of LOR guidelines: \"Do not blame patients,\" \"Respect the role of patients,\" and \"Do not dehumanize patients.\" Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with noncompliance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 101 abstracts from 2023, the majority involved clinical research (66.3%) and had a character count at limit, defined as within 5% of the 2,600-character limit (51.5%). In 60.4% of abstracts, at least one statement violated the LOR guidelines. Proportions of abstracts with one or more statements with dehumanizing, blaming, or disrespectful language were 46.5%, 21.8%, and 1.0%, respectively. Among all variables examined, including research and author characteristics, abstracts at character limit emerged as the only category with significantly higher rates of noncompliance (62.3% <i>v</i> 35.0%, <i>P</i> = .013). Multivariable analyses showed an odds ratio of 3.3 (95% CI, 1.4 to 7.6, <i>P</i> = .006) for abstracts at character limit to have at least one noncompliant statement. Notably, even among abstracts not at character limit, 46.9% contained statements violating the guidelines. Between 2019 and 2023, the rate of statements that violated the LOR guidelines decreased from 71.0% to 60.4%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A significant proportion of RCC abstracts contain language inconsistent with LOR guidelines. Although character limit is a likely contributor, our report highlights the need for our professional societies and abstract reviewers to cultivate greater awareness and adherence to patient-respectful language.</p>","PeriodicalId":14612,"journal":{"name":"JCO oncology practice","volume":" ","pages":"1689-1694"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO oncology practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/OP-24-01039","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The ASCO Language of Respect (LOR) Guidelines were developed in 2020 to promote patient-respectful language in abstracts and presentations. We assessed adherence to LOR guidelines among renal cell carcinoma (RCC) abstracts presented at the 2023 and 2019 ASCO Annual Meetings.

Methods: We systematically evaluated each statement in all RCC abstracts for compliance with the three clauses of LOR guidelines: "Do not blame patients," "Respect the role of patients," and "Do not dehumanize patients." Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with noncompliance.

Results: Among 101 abstracts from 2023, the majority involved clinical research (66.3%) and had a character count at limit, defined as within 5% of the 2,600-character limit (51.5%). In 60.4% of abstracts, at least one statement violated the LOR guidelines. Proportions of abstracts with one or more statements with dehumanizing, blaming, or disrespectful language were 46.5%, 21.8%, and 1.0%, respectively. Among all variables examined, including research and author characteristics, abstracts at character limit emerged as the only category with significantly higher rates of noncompliance (62.3% v 35.0%, P = .013). Multivariable analyses showed an odds ratio of 3.3 (95% CI, 1.4 to 7.6, P = .006) for abstracts at character limit to have at least one noncompliant statement. Notably, even among abstracts not at character limit, 46.9% contained statements violating the guidelines. Between 2019 and 2023, the rate of statements that violated the LOR guidelines decreased from 71.0% to 60.4%.

Conclusion: A significant proportion of RCC abstracts contain language inconsistent with LOR guidelines. Although character limit is a likely contributor, our report highlights the need for our professional societies and abstract reviewers to cultivate greater awareness and adherence to patient-respectful language.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肾细胞癌患者遵守ASCO尊重语言指南的评估摘要。
目的:ASCO尊重语言(LOR)指南于2020年制定,旨在促进在摘要和报告中使用尊重患者的语言。我们评估了2023年和2019年ASCO年会上提交的肾细胞癌(RCC)摘要对LOR指南的依从性。方法:我们系统地评估了所有RCC摘要中的每个陈述是否符合LOR指南的三个条款:“不责怪患者”、“尊重患者的角色”和“不使患者失去人性”。进行单变量和多变量分析以确定与不依从性相关的因素。结果:在2023年的101篇摘要中,大多数涉及临床研究(66.3%),并且具有字数限制,定义为在2600个字符限制(51.5%)的5%以内。在60.4%的摘要中,至少有一个陈述违反了LOR指南。摘要中含有非人化、责备或不尊重语言的比例分别为46.5%、21.8%和1.0%。在包括研究和作者特征在内的所有变量中,字符限制的摘要是唯一一个不符合率显著较高的类别(62.3% vs 35.0%, P = 0.013)。多变量分析显示,在字符限制的摘要中,至少有一个不符合语句的比值比为3.3 (95% CI, 1.4至7.6,P = 0.006)。值得注意的是,即使在没有字符限制的摘要中,也有46.9%的摘要包含违反指导原则的语句。在2019年至2023年期间,违反LOR指南的陈述率从71.0%下降到60.4%。结论:相当大比例的RCC摘要包含与LOR指南不一致的语言。虽然字符限制可能是一个因素,但我们的报告强调,我们的专业协会和摘要审稿人需要培养更多的意识,并坚持尊重患者的语言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
7.50%
发文量
518
期刊最新文献
Interconnectedness of Factors Affecting Patient Willingness to Discuss Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials With Physicians. Improving Survival Among Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the United States, 1975-2017: Long-Term Trends Across Age, Sex, and the HIV/AIDS Era. Translating CRISPR to Practice in the Clinic: Transformative Therapy in Hemoglobinopathies and Emerging Applications in Malignancies. Real-World Toxicity and Efficacy Profile of Enfortumab Vedotin With or Without Pembrolizumab in Ultra-Elderly Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma. Work and Cancer: A Two-Way Street.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1