Corrections for Academic Medicine: The Importance of Using Person-First Language for Individuals Who Have Experienced Incarceration.

This Invited Commentary addresses the use of labels and their impact on people involved in the criminal justice system. There are 2.2 million adults incarcerated in the United States and close to 6.6 million under correctional supervision on any day. Many of these people experience health inequalities and inadequate health care both in and out of correctional facilities. These numbers are reason enough to raise alarm among health care providers and criminal justice researchers about the need to conceptualize better ways to administer health care for these individuals. Using terms like "convict," "prisoner," "parolee," and "offender" to describe these individuals increases the stigma that they already face. The authors propose that employing person-first language for justice-involved individuals would help to reduce the stigma they face during incarceration and after they are released. Coordinated, dignified, and multidisciplinary care is essential for this population given the high rates of morbidity and mortality they experience both in and out of custody and the many barriers that impede their successful integration with families and communities. Academic medicine can begin to address the mistrust that formerly incarcerated individuals often have toward the health care system by using the humanizing labels recommended in this Invited Commentary.

The Names Have Been Changed to Protect the . . . Humanity: Person-First Language in Correctional Health Epidemiology.

After objections surfaced following a call for papers on "Prisoner Health," the editors of Epidemiologic Reviews decided to rename this year's volume "Incarceration and Health." In this commentary, we trace the origins of person-first language and explain why using appropriate terms in correctional health, including correctional health epidemiology, matters. We discuss the potential consequences of person-first language for justice-involved individuals and how inclusive language might affect the social, emotional, and physical well-being of individuals, families, and communities. Future directions may include measuring health outcomes when language is systematically changed. The barriers that thwart successful reentry may wane when dehumanizing language disappears.