Person-first and identity-first disability language: Informing client centred care.

BACKGROUND

Addressing individuals with a disability can entail the use of person-first (person with a disability) or identity-first language (disabled person). However, there has been debate about use of these terms, yet there is a lack of evidence to inform preference across people with a broad range of health conditions, demographics, or health related factors.

METHODS

A 42-item survey measuring demographic and health condition factors, implicit and explicit preference for person-first and identity-first language use was open for completion by individuals with a self-reported health condition between July 7, 2021 and November 30, 2021. Recruitment was undertaken via posts on relevant social media sites and through community support and advocacy organisations.

RESULTS

Data analysis included responses from 875 valid surveys. Mean age of participants was 39.7 (SD: 13.7) years. There were 89 (10.2%) male, 637 female (72.8%) and 149 (17.0%) non-binary/other participants. When referring to themselves, participants most often reported use of identity first language (n = 335, 42.2%), followed by person-first language (n = 272, 34.1%), then both interchangeably (118, 23.7%). When referring to others, participants most often used person first language (n = 312, 39.4%), followed by both interchangeably (269, 34.0%), then identity-first language (n = 211, 26.6%). Disability language preference varied across health conditions, with participants with neurodevelopmental conditions most likely to use identity-first language and participants with digestive conditions most often preferencing person-first language. Participants who were younger and of non-binary gender preferred use of identity-first language. Appropriate use of identity-first language was rated significantly higher for people with a disability/health condition and family/friends than for third-party representatives, including healthcare professionals, educators, media and the general public.

CONCLUSION

Findings highlight the need to understand health condition and disability language preference in a more nuanced way to promote respectful language use when addressing people in the context of their disability/health condition.