Cover not available

Article published In: Register Studies
Vol. 2:2 (2020) ► pp.241–274

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Understanding the multi-dimensional nature of informational language in health care interactions

 | University of Arizona
ORCiD logo with link | Rutgers University
 | Portland State University
 | Princeton Healthcare Center
Published online: 31 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19009.sta
Abstract
Much of the corpus-based research on medical discourse has focused on “involved” language (e.g., 1st person pronouns, discourse markers) and its importance in creating patient rapport (Adolphs, S., Brown, B., Carter, R., Crawford, P., & Sahota, O. (2004). Applying corpus linguistics in a health care context. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 9–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Skelton, J. R., Murray, J., & Hobbs, F. D. R. (1999). Imprecision in medical communication: study of a doctor talking to patients with serious illness. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 921, 620–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; (2016). Identifying linguistic features of medical interactions: A register analysis. In Pickering, L., Friginal, E., & Staples, S. (eds.) Talking at work: Corpus-based explorations of workplace discourse (pp. 179–208). Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave-Macmillon. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). However, in the broader literature on health care interactions, providers’ information provision is equally important in patient-centered care (Ong, L. M. L., de Haes, J. C. J .M., Hoos, A. M., & Lammes, F. B. (1995). Doctor-patient communication: A review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 903–918. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). This paper investigates the ways in which providers and patients use informational language in medical discourse using multidimensional analysis (MDA; Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). We first examine three corpora of medical interactions and then focus a new MDA on one type of interaction that requires more informational language use: discussions of disease and treatment options. The analysis revealed multifaceted aspects of information provision that differ depending on the nature of the information, including providers’ procedural information for medical treatment and impersonal information provision for explaining the disease.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Register studies and MD analysis
    • 2.2Corpus studies of medical discourse
    • 2.3Information exchange in medical interactions
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Corpora
    • 3.2Situational analysis of the three corpora
    • 3.3Data analysis
      • 3.3.1Comparisons with the 1988 MD analysis
      • 3.3.2New MD analysis of medical discourse
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Comparison of medical discourse using Biber (1988) Dimension 1
    • 4.2A new MD analysis
      • 4.2.1Dimension 1: Providers’ procedural information
      • 4.2.2Dimension 2: Patients’ thoughts, feelings, and reports from previous providers
      • 4.2.3Dimension 3: Providers’ impersonal information provision
      • 4.2.4Dimension 4: Providers’ description of future outcomes vs. Patients’ information questions
      • 4.2.5Dimension 5: Providers’ discussion of possibilities
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Implications
  • Note
  • References
References (37)
References
Adolphs, S., Brown, B., Carter, R., Crawford, P., & Sahota, O. (2004). Applying corpus linguistics in a health care context. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 9–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brookes, G., & Baker, P. (2017). What does patient feedback reveal about the NHS? A mixed methods study of comments posted to the NHS Choices online service. BMJ Open, 71, e013821. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). An analytical framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.) Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp. 31–56). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Corpus-based analyses of discourse: Dimensions of variation in conversation. In V. K. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, and R. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 100–114). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M. (2002). Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly, 361, 9–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S. (2016). Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across textual task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cavaco, A., & Roter, D. (2010). Pharmaceutical consultations in community pharmacies: Utility of the Roter Interaction Analysis System to study pharmacist-patient communication. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 181, 141–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epstein, R. M., Franks, P., Fiscella, K., Shields, C. G., Meldrum, S. C., Kravitz, R. L., & Duberstein, P. R. (2005). Measuring patient-centered communication in patient-physician consultations: Theoretical and practical issues. Social Science & Medicine, 611, 1516–1528. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egbert, J., & Staples, S. (2019). Doing multi-dimensional analysis in SPSS, SAS and R. In T. Berber-Sardinha & M. Veirano (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. (2001). If you pop over there: a corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 201, 61–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, H. S., Street, R. L., Sharf, B. F., & Souchek, J. (2006). Racial differences in doctors’ information-giving and patients’ participation. Cancer, 1071, 1313–1320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harvey, K. (2013). Investigating adolescent health communication: A corpus linguistics approach. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, J., & Major, G. (2002). Nurses communicating on the ward: the human face of hospitals. Kai Tiaki, Nursing New Zealand, 8(11), 4–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Talking to patients: The complexity of communication on the ward. Vision: A Journal of Nursing, 111, 4–9.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malthus, D., Holmes, J. and Major, G. (2005). Completing the circle: research based classroom practice with EAL nursing students. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 65–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsuyama, R. K., Kuhn, L. A., Molisani, A., & Wilson-Genderson, M. C. (2013). Cancer patients’ information needs the first nine months after diagnosis. Patient Education & Counseling, 901, 96–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazor, K. M., Beard, R. L., Alexander, G. L., Arora, N. K., Firneno, C., Gaglio, B., Greene, S. M., Lemay, C. A., Robinson, B. E., Roblin, D. W., Walsh, K., Street, R. L., Gallagher, T. H. (2013). Patients’ and family members’ views on patient-centered communication during cancer care. Psycho-Oncology, 221, 2487–2495. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ong, L. M. L., de Haes, J. C. J .M., Hoos, A. M., & Lammes, F. B. (1995). Doctor-patient communication: A review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 903–918. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skelton, J. R., & Hobbs, F. D. R. (1999a). Concordancing: use of language-based research in medical communication. The Lancet, 3531, 108–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skelton, J. R. & Hobbs, F. D. R. (1999b). Descriptive study of cooperative language in primary care consultations by male and female doctors. British Medical Journal, 3181, 576–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skelton, J. R., Wearn, A. M., & Hobbs, F. D. R. (2002). A concordance-based study of metaphoric expressions used by general practitioners and patients in consultation. British Journal of General Practice 52(475), 114–8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skelton, J. R., Murray, J., & Hobbs, F. D. R. (1999). Imprecision in medical communication: study of a doctor talking to patients with serious illness. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 921, 620–625. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Identifying linguistic features of medical interactions: A register analysis. In Pickering, L., Friginal, E., & Staples, S. (eds.) Talking at work: Corpus-based explorations of workplace discourse (pp. 179–208). Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave-Macmillon. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Street, R. L., & Gordon, H. S. (2006). The clinical context and patient participation in post- diagnostic consultations. Patient Education & Counseling, 641, 217–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thomas, J., & Wilson, A. (1996). Methodologies for studying a corpus of doctor–patient interaction. In J. Thomas, & M. Short (Eds.), Using corpora for language research: Studies in the honour of Geoffrey Leech (pp. 92–109). New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Vliet, L. M., van der Wall, E., Albada, A., Spreeuwenberg, P. M., Verheul, W., & Bensing, J. M. (2012). The validity of using analogue patients in practitioner-patient communication research: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of General Intern Medicine, 27(11), 1528–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venetis, M. K., Robinson, J. D., Allen, M., & Turkiewicz, K. L., (2009). An evidence base for patient-centered care: A meta-analysis of studies of observed communication between cancer specialists and their patients. Patient Education & Counseling, 771, 379–383, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venetis, M. K., Staples, S., Robinson, J. D., & Kearney, T. (2019). Provider information provision and breast cancer patient well-being. Health Communication, 341, 1032–1042. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue