Pregnancy Loss Language - Supporting Policymakers

This project is a companion project to the EStELC Project.

Introduction

The main aim of the SuPPL project was to identify any language used in relation to pregnancy loss in the UK that is particularly objectionable to people with lived experience of pregnancy loss and, conversely, any language that is acceptable. This aim is distinct from that of the EStELC Project, which gathered qualitative data and aimed to amplify the voices of people with lived experience of pregnancy loss who felt that language had played an important role in their experience. The EStELC Project found significant variation amongst lived experience participants in the language they found helpful and in the language they considered to exacerbate their grief and trauma; and therefore culminated in the recommendation that the individual language needs of people going through pregnancy loss be respected and accommodated in clinical settings wherever possible. Work to implement a clinical framework that can facilitate this accommodation of language needs is therefore ongoing.

However, work also needs to be done in parallel, to ascertain how language can be optimised in contexts where pregnancy loss language cannot be individualised and cannot respect individual language needs, such as public health information websites or leaflets, and policy language. These so-called ‘mass communication’ contexts pose a more intractable problem in some ways than individual clinical interactions, since a ‘one size fits all’ approach has to be taken, regardless of the reality, as demonstrated by EStELC, that this will be difficult for some people. This project was designed to tackle this problem head on, taking a quantitative approach to exploring feelings about pregnancy loss language amongst those with recent experience in the UK.

Whilst EStELC findings show considerable variation, therefore, the SuPPL Project aimed to find consensus about many words and phrases commonly used in the context of pregnancy loss in contemporary British English. In some cases, there is clear consensus that certain words and phrases are unacceptable. In other cases, particular words and phrases emerge as acceptable to a majority of respondents. There is also a category of words which prompt a mixed response.

For all these categories, of ‘unacceptable’, ‘acceptable’ and ‘mixed’, the qualitative findings of the EStELC project provide useful contextualisation and complement the quantitative findings presented here. This is especially true where mixed attitudes emerge. Attitudes to the word miscarriage (see p.11 of the project report) provide an example of this; whilst strong criticism of this word emerged during EStELC, SuPPL data shows feelings on it to be split, with no consensus emerging. This indicates, helpfully, that miscarriage may be an unhelpful word to many, but that for others it is neutral or even acceptable. In such cases, this report cannot make recommendations beyond a general suggestion that use of such divisive words be considered carefully in mass communication contexts. However, where a clear consensus on either the acceptability or unacceptability of a word emerges from the SuPPL dataset, this allows evidence-based recommendations to be made for use of language in pregnancy loss contexts in mass communication. These recommendations can be found at the end of the project report.

Ethical approval for SuPPL project data gathering was granted in May 2024 by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Project ID 26991/002).

Report

• Final project report

See also

• EStELC Project

Survey of English Usage

• The Survey of English Usage
• About the Survey
• Research Projects
• Research Resources 
• Software Sales
• Events and Seminars
• Summer School
• The English Grammar Day
• Short Courses for Teachers
• Survey Archives

SuPPL Project

• Introduction
• Report

EsTELC Project

• Pregnancy Loss Language
• A Note on Language
• Language Matters
• Research Questions
• Aims and Scope
• Reports