Discourse structure differences in lay and professional health communication

Purpose - In this paper the authors seek to compare lay (consumer) and professional (physician) discourse structures in answers to diabetes-related questions in a public consumer health information website.Design methodology approach - Ten consumer and ten physician question threads were aligned. Th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of documentation 2012-01, Vol.68 (6), p.826-851
Hauptverfasser: Abrahamson, Jennie A., Rubin, Victoria L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 851
container_issue 6
container_start_page 826
container_title Journal of documentation
container_volume 68
creator Abrahamson, Jennie A.
Rubin, Victoria L.
description Purpose - In this paper the authors seek to compare lay (consumer) and professional (physician) discourse structures in answers to diabetes-related questions in a public consumer health information website.Design methodology approach - Ten consumer and ten physician question threads were aligned. They generated 26 consumer and ten physician answers, constituting a total dataset of 717 discourse units (in sentences or sentence fragments). The authors depart from previous LIS health information behaviour research by utilizing a computational linguistics-based theoretical framework of rhetorical structure theory, which enables research at the pragmatics level of linguistics in terms of the goals and effects of human communication.Findings - The authors reveal differences in discourse organization by identifying prevalent rhetorical relations in each type of discourse. Consumer answers included predominately (66 per cent) presentational rhetorical structure relations, those intended to motivate or otherwise help a user do something (e.g. motivation, concession, and enablement). Physician answers included mainly subject matter relations (64 per cent), intended to inform, or simply transfer information to a user (e.g. elaboration, condition, and interpretation).Research limitations implications - The findings suggest different communicative goals expressed in lay and professional health information sharing. Consumers appear to be more motivating, or activating, and more polite (linguistically) than physicians in how they share information with consumers online in similar topics in diabetes management. The authors consider whether one source of information encourages adherence to healthy behaviour more effectively than another.Originality value - Analysing discourse structure - using rhetorical structure theory - is a novel and promising approach in information behaviour research, and one that traverses the lexico-semantic level of linguistic analysis towards pragmatics of language use.
doi_str_mv 10.1108/00220411211277064
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_00220411211277064</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2793401841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-8bc7a65720ac1381b76cecea027ac8f8e0b61111e2b130fe9f273b97154c94c63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMouH78AG8FETxYnUm6TXqU9RMWvOi5pNkJW-nHmrQH_72zrOzBVQyBwMwzL_PmFeIM4RoRzA2AlJAhSr5aQ57tiQnqqUm10sW-mKz7KQPmUBzF-A6A3DATMb-ro-vHECmJQxjdMAZKFrX3FKhzFJO6Sxr7mdhukaxC7ynGuu9skyzJNsMycX3bjl3t7MDlE3HgbRPp9Ps9Fm8P96-zp3T-8vg8u52nLsv0kJrKaZtPtQTrUBmsdO7IkQWprTPeEFQ58iFZoQJPhZdaVYXGaeaKzOXqWFxudHmjj5HiULbsgprGdtSPsURpVK6ytcf_UYmmAAXA6PkP9J0_hr0yhchyBpRiCjeUC32MgXy5CnVrw2eJUK6jKHei4JmLb2UbnW18sJ2r43ZQ5tOs4ESYu9pw1FKwzWJL7EiWq4VnHH7H_97kC7LBonM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1113408033</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Discourse structure differences in lay and professional health communication</title><source>Emerald A-Z Current Journals</source><creator>Abrahamson, Jennie A. ; Rubin, Victoria L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Abrahamson, Jennie A. ; Rubin, Victoria L.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose - In this paper the authors seek to compare lay (consumer) and professional (physician) discourse structures in answers to diabetes-related questions in a public consumer health information website.Design methodology approach - Ten consumer and ten physician question threads were aligned. They generated 26 consumer and ten physician answers, constituting a total dataset of 717 discourse units (in sentences or sentence fragments). The authors depart from previous LIS health information behaviour research by utilizing a computational linguistics-based theoretical framework of rhetorical structure theory, which enables research at the pragmatics level of linguistics in terms of the goals and effects of human communication.Findings - The authors reveal differences in discourse organization by identifying prevalent rhetorical relations in each type of discourse. Consumer answers included predominately (66 per cent) presentational rhetorical structure relations, those intended to motivate or otherwise help a user do something (e.g. motivation, concession, and enablement). Physician answers included mainly subject matter relations (64 per cent), intended to inform, or simply transfer information to a user (e.g. elaboration, condition, and interpretation).Research limitations implications - The findings suggest different communicative goals expressed in lay and professional health information sharing. Consumers appear to be more motivating, or activating, and more polite (linguistically) than physicians in how they share information with consumers online in similar topics in diabetes management. The authors consider whether one source of information encourages adherence to healthy behaviour more effectively than another.Originality value - Analysing discourse structure - using rhetorical structure theory - is a novel and promising approach in information behaviour research, and one that traverses the lexico-semantic level of linguistic analysis towards pragmatics of language use.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-0418</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-7379</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/00220411211277064</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JDOCAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome ; Adhesion ; AIDS ; Alignment ; Chronic illnesses ; Communication ; Communication (Thought Transfer) ; Comparisons ; Computational Linguistics ; Consumer health information ; Consumers ; Diabetes ; Disease ; Disease prevention ; Doctors ; Exact sciences and technology ; Exercise ; Fragments ; Global health ; Health ; Health care ; Health Personnel ; Health Promotion ; Health Services ; HIV ; Human immunodeficiency virus ; Information and communication sciences ; Information communication ; Information science. Documentation ; Information Seeking ; Information seeking behavior ; Information sharing ; Information sources ; Internet ; Library and information science ; Library and information science. General aspects ; Linguistics ; Literature Reviews ; Medical personnel ; Patient compliance ; Patients ; Personal health ; Physicians ; Pragmatics ; Professionals ; Resistance (Psychology) ; Sciences and techniques of general use ; Sentences ; Social Environment ; Social Support Groups ; Studies ; Users ; Websites</subject><ispartof>Journal of documentation, 2012-01, Vol.68 (6), p.826-851</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-8bc7a65720ac1381b76cecea027ac8f8e0b61111e2b130fe9f273b97154c94c63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-8bc7a65720ac1381b76cecea027ac8f8e0b61111e2b130fe9f273b97154c94c63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00220411211277064/full/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/00220411211277064/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,967,11635,27924,27925,52686,52689</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=26549001$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Abrahamson, Jennie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubin, Victoria L.</creatorcontrib><title>Discourse structure differences in lay and professional health communication</title><title>Journal of documentation</title><description>Purpose - In this paper the authors seek to compare lay (consumer) and professional (physician) discourse structures in answers to diabetes-related questions in a public consumer health information website.Design methodology approach - Ten consumer and ten physician question threads were aligned. They generated 26 consumer and ten physician answers, constituting a total dataset of 717 discourse units (in sentences or sentence fragments). The authors depart from previous LIS health information behaviour research by utilizing a computational linguistics-based theoretical framework of rhetorical structure theory, which enables research at the pragmatics level of linguistics in terms of the goals and effects of human communication.Findings - The authors reveal differences in discourse organization by identifying prevalent rhetorical relations in each type of discourse. Consumer answers included predominately (66 per cent) presentational rhetorical structure relations, those intended to motivate or otherwise help a user do something (e.g. motivation, concession, and enablement). Physician answers included mainly subject matter relations (64 per cent), intended to inform, or simply transfer information to a user (e.g. elaboration, condition, and interpretation).Research limitations implications - The findings suggest different communicative goals expressed in lay and professional health information sharing. Consumers appear to be more motivating, or activating, and more polite (linguistically) than physicians in how they share information with consumers online in similar topics in diabetes management. The authors consider whether one source of information encourages adherence to healthy behaviour more effectively than another.Originality value - Analysing discourse structure - using rhetorical structure theory - is a novel and promising approach in information behaviour research, and one that traverses the lexico-semantic level of linguistic analysis towards pragmatics of language use.</description><subject>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome</subject><subject>Adhesion</subject><subject>AIDS</subject><subject>Alignment</subject><subject>Chronic illnesses</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Communication (Thought Transfer)</subject><subject>Comparisons</subject><subject>Computational Linguistics</subject><subject>Consumer health information</subject><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>Doctors</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Fragments</subject><subject>Global health</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Personnel</subject><subject>Health Promotion</subject><subject>Health Services</subject><subject>HIV</subject><subject>Human immunodeficiency virus</subject><subject>Information and communication sciences</subject><subject>Information communication</subject><subject>Information science. Documentation</subject><subject>Information Seeking</subject><subject>Information seeking behavior</subject><subject>Information sharing</subject><subject>Information sources</subject><subject>Internet</subject><subject>Library and information science</subject><subject>Library and information science. General aspects</subject><subject>Linguistics</subject><subject>Literature Reviews</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Patient compliance</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Personal health</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Pragmatics</subject><subject>Professionals</subject><subject>Resistance (Psychology)</subject><subject>Sciences and techniques of general use</subject><subject>Sentences</subject><subject>Social Environment</subject><subject>Social Support Groups</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Users</subject><subject>Websites</subject><issn>0022-0418</issn><issn>1758-7379</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMouH78AG8FETxYnUm6TXqU9RMWvOi5pNkJW-nHmrQH_72zrOzBVQyBwMwzL_PmFeIM4RoRzA2AlJAhSr5aQ57tiQnqqUm10sW-mKz7KQPmUBzF-A6A3DATMb-ro-vHECmJQxjdMAZKFrX3FKhzFJO6Sxr7mdhukaxC7ynGuu9skyzJNsMycX3bjl3t7MDlE3HgbRPp9Ps9Fm8P96-zp3T-8vg8u52nLsv0kJrKaZtPtQTrUBmsdO7IkQWprTPeEFQ58iFZoQJPhZdaVYXGaeaKzOXqWFxudHmjj5HiULbsgprGdtSPsURpVK6ytcf_UYmmAAXA6PkP9J0_hr0yhchyBpRiCjeUC32MgXy5CnVrw2eJUK6jKHei4JmLb2UbnW18sJ2r43ZQ5tOs4ESYu9pw1FKwzWJL7EiWq4VnHH7H_97kC7LBonM</recordid><startdate>20120101</startdate><enddate>20120101</enddate><creator>Abrahamson, Jennie A.</creator><creator>Rubin, Victoria L.</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><general>Emerald</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>CNYFK</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>E3H</scope><scope>F2A</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1O</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120101</creationdate><title>Discourse structure differences in lay and professional health communication</title><author>Abrahamson, Jennie A. ; Rubin, Victoria L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-8bc7a65720ac1381b76cecea027ac8f8e0b61111e2b130fe9f273b97154c94c63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Acquired immune deficiency syndrome</topic><topic>Adhesion</topic><topic>AIDS</topic><topic>Alignment</topic><topic>Chronic illnesses</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Communication (Thought Transfer)</topic><topic>Comparisons</topic><topic>Computational Linguistics</topic><topic>Consumer health information</topic><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>Doctors</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Fragments</topic><topic>Global health</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Personnel</topic><topic>Health Promotion</topic><topic>Health Services</topic><topic>HIV</topic><topic>Human immunodeficiency virus</topic><topic>Information and communication sciences</topic><topic>Information communication</topic><topic>Information science. Documentation</topic><topic>Information Seeking</topic><topic>Information seeking behavior</topic><topic>Information sharing</topic><topic>Information sources</topic><topic>Internet</topic><topic>Library and information science</topic><topic>Library and information science. General aspects</topic><topic>Linguistics</topic><topic>Literature Reviews</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Patient compliance</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Personal health</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Pragmatics</topic><topic>Professionals</topic><topic>Resistance (Psychology)</topic><topic>Sciences and techniques of general use</topic><topic>Sentences</topic><topic>Social Environment</topic><topic>Social Support Groups</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Users</topic><topic>Websites</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Abrahamson, Jennie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rubin, Victoria L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library &amp; Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design &amp; Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Library Science Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><jtitle>Journal of documentation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Abrahamson, Jennie A.</au><au>Rubin, Victoria L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Discourse structure differences in lay and professional health communication</atitle><jtitle>Journal of documentation</jtitle><date>2012-01-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>68</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>826</spage><epage>851</epage><pages>826-851</pages><issn>0022-0418</issn><eissn>1758-7379</eissn><coden>JDOCAS</coden><abstract>Purpose - In this paper the authors seek to compare lay (consumer) and professional (physician) discourse structures in answers to diabetes-related questions in a public consumer health information website.Design methodology approach - Ten consumer and ten physician question threads were aligned. They generated 26 consumer and ten physician answers, constituting a total dataset of 717 discourse units (in sentences or sentence fragments). The authors depart from previous LIS health information behaviour research by utilizing a computational linguistics-based theoretical framework of rhetorical structure theory, which enables research at the pragmatics level of linguistics in terms of the goals and effects of human communication.Findings - The authors reveal differences in discourse organization by identifying prevalent rhetorical relations in each type of discourse. Consumer answers included predominately (66 per cent) presentational rhetorical structure relations, those intended to motivate or otherwise help a user do something (e.g. motivation, concession, and enablement). Physician answers included mainly subject matter relations (64 per cent), intended to inform, or simply transfer information to a user (e.g. elaboration, condition, and interpretation).Research limitations implications - The findings suggest different communicative goals expressed in lay and professional health information sharing. Consumers appear to be more motivating, or activating, and more polite (linguistically) than physicians in how they share information with consumers online in similar topics in diabetes management. The authors consider whether one source of information encourages adherence to healthy behaviour more effectively than another.Originality value - Analysing discourse structure - using rhetorical structure theory - is a novel and promising approach in information behaviour research, and one that traverses the lexico-semantic level of linguistic analysis towards pragmatics of language use.</abstract><cop>Bingley</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/00220411211277064</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-0418
ispartof Journal of documentation, 2012-01, Vol.68 (6), p.826-851
issn 0022-0418
1758-7379
language eng
recordid cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_00220411211277064
source Emerald A-Z Current Journals
subjects Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
Adhesion
AIDS
Alignment
Chronic illnesses
Communication
Communication (Thought Transfer)
Comparisons
Computational Linguistics
Consumer health information
Consumers
Diabetes
Disease
Disease prevention
Doctors
Exact sciences and technology
Exercise
Fragments
Global health
Health
Health care
Health Personnel
Health Promotion
Health Services
HIV
Human immunodeficiency virus
Information and communication sciences
Information communication
Information science. Documentation
Information Seeking
Information seeking behavior
Information sharing
Information sources
Internet
Library and information science
Library and information science. General aspects
Linguistics
Literature Reviews
Medical personnel
Patient compliance
Patients
Personal health
Physicians
Pragmatics
Professionals
Resistance (Psychology)
Sciences and techniques of general use
Sentences
Social Environment
Social Support Groups
Studies
Users
Websites
title Discourse structure differences in lay and professional health communication
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T08%3A58%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Discourse%20structure%20differences%20in%20lay%20and%20professional%20health%20communication&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20documentation&rft.au=Abrahamson,%20Jennie%20A.&rft.date=2012-01-01&rft.volume=68&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=826&rft.epage=851&rft.pages=826-851&rft.issn=0022-0418&rft.eissn=1758-7379&rft.coden=JDOCAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/00220411211277064&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E2793401841%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1113408033&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true