Cover not available
Article published In:
Register Studies
Vol. 2:2 (2020) ► pp.241–274

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

| University of Arizona
ORCID logo | Rutgers University
| Portland State University
| Princeton Healthcare Center
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, Brown, Carter, Crawford, & Sahota, 2004; Skelton & Hobbes, 1999; Staples, 2016). However, in the broader literature on health care interactions, providers’ information provision is equally important in patient-centered care (Ong, de Haes, Joos, & Lammes, 1995). This paper investigates the ways in which providers and patients use informational language in medical discourse using multidimensional analysis (MDA; Biber, 1988). 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.
Keywords: medical discourse, MD analysis, provider-patient interaction
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
Published online: 31 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19009.sta
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
(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
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harvey, K. (2013). Investigating adolescent health communication: A corpus linguistics approach. London: Bloomsbury.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
(2003). Talking to patients: The complexity of communication on the ward. Vision: A Journal of Nursing, 111, 4–9.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software].Google Scholar
Skelton, J. R., & Hobbs, F. D. R. (1999a). Concordancing: use of language-based research in medical communication. The Lancet, 3531, 108–11. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Street, R. L., & Gordon, H. S. (2006). The clinical context and patient participation in post- diagnostic consultations. Patient Education & Counseling, 641, 217–224. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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, DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar