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.