Literature DB >> 23015510

Public perception of birth defects terminology.

Cara T Mai1, Emily E Petersen, Assia Miller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 'Birth defect' is a common phrase, yet concerns have been expressed that the word 'defect' carries a negative connotation. Our objective was to examine public perceptions of terms used to refer to birth defects.
METHODS: Four questions about terminology of birth defects were included in the U.S. nationally representative 2007 HealthStyles survey. Respondents answered questions about whether they or a family member were affected by birth defects (condition status), and which terms used to refer to birth defects they found preferable and which offensive. We further examined whether condition status, race/ethnicity, gender, income, geographical region, and education level impacted respondents' term selection. Chi-square tests and multinomial logistic regression were performed using SAS 9.1.
RESULTS: 'Birth defects' was most frequently selected as the first choice preferred term (35.4%), followed by 21.9% who selected 'children with special needs. ' For respondents who said they themselves or a family member were affected by birth defects (11.5%), their responses differed statistically (p ≤ 0.0001) from nonaffected respondents, but the leading choices were still 'birth defects' (28.5%) and 'children with special needs' (27.2%). Condition status, race/ethnicity, gender, income, and education level were all significant predictors of the respondents' choice of a preferred term. When asked which phrases might be offensive, the top choices were 'none of the phrases listed' (37.0%), 'adverse pregnancy outcomes' (23.1%), and 'birth defects' (21.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: 'Birth defect' was the preferred term; however, survey participants affected by birth defects responded less positively to the term. Continued dialogue about accepted and appropriate terminology is necessary.
Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23015510      PMCID: PMC4618792          DOI: 10.1002/bdra.23080

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol        ISSN: 1542-0752


  9 in total

1.  New words for new purposes: a challenge for the AAMR.

Authors:  Scot Danforth
Journal:  Ment Retard       Date:  2002-02

2.  The dignity of humanity is not a scientific construct.

Authors:  Steven A Gelb
Journal:  Ment Retard       Date:  2002-02

3.  Naming, defining, and classifying in mental retardation.

Authors:  R Luckasson; A Reeve
Journal:  Ment Retard       Date:  2001-02

4.  Rejecting the label: a social constructionist analysis.

Authors:  W M L Finlay; E Lyons
Journal:  Ment Retard       Date:  2005-04

5.  The renaming of mental retardation: understanding the change to the term intellectual disability.

Authors:  Robert L Schalock; Ruth A Luckasson; Karrie A Shogren; Sharon Borthwick-Duffy; Val Bradley; Wil H E Buntinx; David L Coulter; Ellis M Craig; Sharon C Gomez; Yves Lachapelle; Alya Reeve; Martha E Snell; Scott Spreat; Marc J Tassé; James R Thompson; Miguel A Verdugo; Michael L Wehmeyer; Mark H Yeager
Journal:  Intellect Dev Disabil       Date:  2007-04

6.  Mental retardation is dead: long live mental retardation !

Authors:  David Goode
Journal:  Ment Retard       Date:  2002-02

7.  Comparability of diagnostic data. Coded by the 8th and 9th Revisions of the International Classification of Diseases.

Authors:  B C Duggar; W F Lewis
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 2       Date:  1987-07

8.  An analysis of labels for people with learning disabilities.

Authors:  R P Hastings; E J Sonuga-Barke; B Remington
Journal:  Br J Clin Psychol       Date:  1993-11

9.  On "good" terms: labeling people with mental retardation.

Authors:  R P Hastings
Journal:  Ment Retard       Date:  1994-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.