OBJECTIVES: Authors can choose to use "person-first language” (PFL) or “condition-first language” (CFL) when publishing their research. PFL refers to terminology that focuses on the person over their condition (e.g., patients with cancer), while CFL labels the individual by their disease (e.g., cancer patients), potentially leading to stigmatization. There have been various efforts to promote the use of PFL in scientific and medical publications, including guidance from journal editors. But has it been successful?

METHODS: Searches for articles published in the Top 10 oncology journals (based on SCImago (SJR) rankings) between 2013 and 2023 were conducted in Embase. Abstracts were reviewed automatically to assess the use of PFL/CFL terms.

RESULTS: 32,593 articles were published in the top 10 oncology journals in the prespecified timeframe; 2,290 publications did not include either PFL or CFL and were excluded. The remaining 30,303 publications used PFL and/or CFL terms. Over the entire 10-year period, 56.4% of articles used only CFL, 35.2% used only PFL, and 8.5% used both CFL and PFL. However, there are some differences over time. Abstracts with only CFL increased between 2013 and 2017 (54.9%-61.9%) and between 2019 and 2020 (57.2%-60.1%) before decreasing again to 49.5% in 2023. The opposite was seen for PFL only, with 39.2% in 2013 decreasing to 29.9-31.6% in the period 2017-2020 before increasing again to 40.7% in 2023. As such, PFL vs CFL rates in 2023 were similar to those in 2013.

CONCLUSIONS: While PFL is recommended when referring to people with medical conditions, scientific and medical publications in oncology seem to be slow in adopting this practice. While journal word-count restrictions for abstracts might encourage writers to choose CFL, authors may need to move toward a practice potentially less stigmatizing. No clear trends for PFL use may be due to lack of a specific guidance.