nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.02.2016

Hanging by a thread: exploring the features of nonresponse in an online young adult cancer survivorship support community

verfasst von: Brittani Crook, Elizabeth M. Glowacki, Brad Love, Barbara L. Jones, Catherine Fiona Macpherson, Rebecca H. Johnson

Erschienen in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Finding helpful information can be challenging for young adult (YA) cancer survivors; thus, it is critical to examine features of online posts that successfully solicit responses and assess how these differ from posts that do not solicit responses.

Methods

Using posts from an online YA cancer support community, we analyzed initial posts that did and did not receive replies utilizing Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC).

Results

Independent t tests revealed significant differences between the sets of posts regarding content, emotions, cognitive processes, pronoun use, and linguistic complexity. More specifically, posts with replies contained fewer words per sentence, had more first-person pronouns, had more expressions of negative emotions, and contained more present tense and past tense verbs.

Conclusions

The findings of this study can help improve peer-exchanged support in online communities so that YA cancer survivors can more effectively receive digital support. This research also provides communication researchers, health educators, and care providers a lens for understanding the YA cancer survivorship experience.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

This research helps survivors be strategic in how they use online forums to seek advice and support. More complete understanding of what kinds of prompts produce responses allows those in need to craft messages in ways that are most likely to elicit support from fellow cancer survivors. These implications for message design extend beyond blogging and can be applicable for text message and email exchanges between cancer patients and their care providers.

Goldsmith DJ. Uncertainty and communication in couples coping with serious illness. In: Afifi TD, Afifi WA, editors. Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: theories and applications. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 202–25.

Hogan TP, Brashers DE. The theory of communication uncertainty management: implications from the wider realm of information behavior. In: Afifi TD, Afifi WA, editors. Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: theories and applications. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 45–66.

Lyons RF, Mickelson KD, Sullivan MJL, Coyne JC. Coping as a communal process. J Soc Pers Relat. 1998;15(5):579–605.CrossRef

Wright KB, Bell SB. Health-related support groups on the Internet: linking empirical findings to social support and computer-mediated communication theory. J Health Psychol. 2003;8(1):39–54.PubMedCrossRef

Zebrack B. Information and service needs for young adult cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2009;17(4):349–57.PubMedCrossRef

Fox S. (2010) Cancer 2.0: a summary of recent research. Available at: http://pewrsr.ch/Cancer20 (accessed 24 February 2015).

Pew Internet and American Life Project (2011) Chronic disease and the Internet. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Chronic-Disease.aspx (accessed 24 February 2015).

Kyngäs H, Mikkonen R, Nousiainen EM, Rytilahti M, Seppänen P, Vaattovaara R, et al. Coping with the onset of cancer: coping strategies and resources of young people with cancer. Eur J Cancer Care. 2001;10(1):6–11.CrossRef

Gunawardena CN. Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int J Educ Telecommun. 1995;1(2):147–66.

10.

Høybye MT, Johansen C, Tjørnhøj‐Thomsen T. Online interaction. Effects of storytelling in an internet breast cancer support group. Psycho-Oncology. 2005;14(3):211–20.PubMedCrossRef

11.

van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CH, Taal E, Shaw BR, Seydel ER, van de Laar MA. Empowering processes and outcomes of participation in online support groups for patients with breast cancer, arthritis, or fibromyalgia. Qual Health Res. 2008;18(3):405–17.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Winzelberg AJ, Classen C, Alpers GW, Roberts H, Koopman C, Adams RE, et al. Evaluation of an internet support group for women with primary breast cancer. Cancer. 2003;97(5):1164–73.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Cantrell MA, Conte T. Enhancing hope among early female survivors of childhood cancer via the Internet: a feasibility study. Cancer Nurs. 2008;31(5):370–9.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Zebrack B, Corbett V, Embry LI, Aguilar C, Meeske KA, Hayes-Lattin B, et al. Psychological distress and unsatisfied need for psychosocial support in adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients during the first year following diagnosis. Psycho-Oncology. 2014;23(11):1267–75.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Anderson JO, Geist MP. Narratives and healing: exploring one family’s stories of cancer survivorship. Health Commun. 2003;15(2):133–43.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Goldsmith DJ, Miller LE, Caughlin JP. Openness and avoidance in couples communicating about cancer. In: Beck CS, editor. Communication yearbook, 31. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 2008. p. 62–115.

17.

Weber KM, Solomon DH. Locating relationship and communication issues among stressors associated with breast cancer. Health Commun. 2008;23(6):548–59.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Joyce E, Kraut R. Predicting continued participation in newsgroups. J Comput Mediated Commun. 2006;11(3):723–47.CrossRef

19.

Lampe C. and Johnston E. Follow the (slash) dot: effects of feedback on new members in an online community. In Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work. 2005; 11-20.

20.

Cramton C. Attribution in distributed work groups. In: Hinds P, Kiesler S, editors. Distributed work. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002. p. 191–212.

21.

Kissane DW, Grabsch B, Clarke DM, Smith GC, Love AW, Bloch S, et al. Supportive‐expressive group therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: survival and psychosocial outcome from a randomized controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology. 2007;16(4):277–86.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kissane DW, Bloch S, Smith GC, Miach P, Clarke DM, Ikin J, et al. Cognitive‐existential group psychotherapy for women with primary breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Psycho-Oncology. 2003;12(6):532–46.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Simpson JSA, Carlson LE, Trew ME. Effect of group therapy for breast cancer on healthcare utilization. Cancer Pract. 2001;9(1):19–26.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Jones Q, Ravid G, Rafaeli S. Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: a theoretical model and empirical exploration. Inf Syst Res. 2004;15(2):194–210.CrossRef

25.

Whittaker S, Terveen L, Hill W, Cherny L. The dynamics of mass interaction. In From Usenet to CoWebs. London: Springer; 2003. p. 79–91.

26.

Arguello J., Butler BS., Joyce E., Kraut R., Ling KS., Rosé C. and Wang X. Talk to me: foundations for successful individual-group interactions in online communities. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 2006;959-968.

27.

Dino A., Reysen S., Branscombe NR. Online interactions between group members who differ in status. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2008.

28.

Gonzales AL, Hancock JT, Pennebaker JW. Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Commun Res. 2009;37:3–19.CrossRef

29.

Burke M., Joyce E., Kim T., Anand V. and Kraut R. Introductions and requests: rhetorical strategies that elicit response in online communities. Communities and Technologies: 21-39 Springer London. 2007.

30.

Simmons RA, Gordon PC, Chambless DL. Pronouns in marital interaction what do “you” and “I” say about marital health? Psychol Sci. 2005;16(12):932–6.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Williams‐Baucom KJ, Atkins DC, Sevier M, Eldridge KA, Christensen A. “You” and “I” need to talk about “us”: linguistic patterns in marital interactions. Pers Relat. 2010;17(1):41–56.CrossRef

32.

Weintraub W. Verbal behavior: adaptation and psychopathology. New York: Springer; 1981.

33.

Pennebaker JW, Mehl MR, Niederhoffer KG. Psychological aspects of natural language use: our words, our selves. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:547–77.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Pennebaker JW, Stone LD. Words of wisdom: language use over the life span. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(2):291–301.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Pennebaker JW, King L. Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;77(6):1296–312.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Brown P, Levinson S. Politeness: some universals in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University; 1987.

37.

Davison KP, Pennebaker JW, Petrie KJ. Virtual narratives: illness representations in online support groups. In: Petrie KJ, Weinman JA, editors. Perceptions of health and illness: current research and applications. Amsterdam: Overseas Publishers Association; 1997. p. 463–86.

38.

Cohn MA, Mehl MR, Pennebaker JW. Linguistic markers of psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(10):687–93.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Oh JS, He D, Jeng W, Mattern E, Bowler L. Linguistic characteristics of eating disorder questions on Yahoo! Answers–content, style, and emotion. Proc Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2013;50(1):1–10.

40.

Lepore SJ, Smyth JM. The writing cure: how expressive writing promotes health and emotional well-being. Washington DC: American Psychological Association; 2002.CrossRef

41.

Stanton AL, Danoff-Burg S, Sworowski LA, Collins CA, Branstetter AD, Rodriquez-Hanley A, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of written emotional expression and benefit finding in breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(20):4160–8.PubMedCrossRef

42.

McKenna MC, Zevon MA, Corn B, Rounds J. Psychosocial factors and the development of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 1999;18(5):520–31.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Pennebaker JW, Francis ME, Booth RJ. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC2001 Manual. Mahwah: Erlbaum Publishers; 2001.

44.

Campbell-Eichhorn K. Soliciting and providing social support over the internet: an investigation of online eating disorder support groups. J Comput Mediated Commun. 2008;14(1):67–78.CrossRef

45.

Pennebaker JW., Chung CK., Ireland M., Gonzales A. and Booth RJ. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. LIWC2007 Manual. 2007.

46.

Liberman MA. Effects of disease and leader type on moderators in online support groups. Comput Hum Behav. 2008;24(5):2446–55.CrossRef

47.

Love B, Crook B, Mooney-Thompson C, Zaitchik S, Knapp J, Lefebvre L, et al. Exploring the communication of social support within online communities: a content analysis of messages in an adolescent and young adult cancer community. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2012;15(10):555–9.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Ridings CM and Gefen D. Virtual community attraction: why people hang out online. J Comput-Mediat Commun. 2004; 10(1).

49.

Moravcsik E. A semantic analysis of associative plurals. Stud Lang. 2003;27(3):469–503.CrossRef

50.

Steiner JF. The use of stories in clinical research and health policy. JAMA. 2005;294(22):2901–4.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Yaskowich KM, Stam HJ. Cancer narratives and the cancer support group. J Health Psychol. 2003;8(6):720–37.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Ezzy D. Illness narratives: time, hope and HIV. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(5):605–17.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Donovan EE., Brown LE., LeFebvre L., Tardif S. and Love B. “The uncertainty is what is driving me crazy”: the tripartite model of uncertainty in the adolescent and young adult cancer context. Health Communication: 2014;1-12. doi: 10.1080/1041236.2014.898193.

54.

Woodgate RL, Degner LF. “Nothing is carved in stone!”: uncertainty in children with cancer and their families. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2002;6(4):191–202.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Mishel MH. Uncertainty in illness. Image: J Nurs Sch. 1988;20(4):225–32.

56.

Hewson MG, Van Kindy PJ, Kirk J, Gennis VA, Day RP. Strategies for managing uncertainty and complexity. J Gen Intern Med. 1996;11(8):481–5.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Bar-Lev S. “We are here to give you emotional support”: performing emotions in an online HIV/AIDS support group. Qual Health Res. 2008;18:509–21.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Finn J. An exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on issues of disability. Health Soc Work. 1999;24(3):220–31.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Owen JE, Klapow JC, Roth DL, Shuster JL, Bellis J, Meredith R, et al. Randomized pilot of a self-guided Internet coping group for women with early-stage breast cancer. Ann Behav Med. 2005;30(1):54–64.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Tausczik YR, Pennebaker JW. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2010;29(1):24–54.CrossRef

61.

Lieberman MA, Goldstein BA. Not all negative emotions are equal: the role of emotional expression in online support groups for women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology. 2006;15(2):160–8.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Smyth JM, True N, Souto J. Effects of writing about traumatic experiences: the necessity for narrative structuring. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2001;20(2):161–72.CrossRef

63.

Sloan DM, Marx BP. Taking pen to hand: evaluating theories underlying the written disclosure paradigm. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2004;11(2):121–37.CrossRef

64.

Pennebaker JW, Beall S. Confronting a traumatic event: toward an understanding of inhibition and disease. J Abnorm Psychol. 1986;95(3):274–81.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Matthews A, Derlega VJ, Morrow J. What is highly personal information and how is it related to self-disclosure and decision-making? The perspective of college students. Commun Res Rep. 2006;23(2):85–92.CrossRef

66.

Thompson CM, Crook B, Love B, Macpherson, CF and Johnson RH. Understanding how adolescents and young adults with cancer talk about needs in online and face-to-face support groups: language descriptions and comparisons. J Health Psychol. 2015.

67.

Seale C. Gender accommodation in online cancer support groups. Health. 2006;10(3):345–60.PubMed

68.

Uehara ES. Reciprocity reconsidered: Gouldner’s “moral norm of reciprocity” and social support. J Soc Pers Relat. 1995;12(4):483–502.CrossRef

69.

Heaney CA, Israel BA. Social networks and social support. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, practice, and research. San Francisco: Wiley; 2008. p. 189–207.

Titel: Hanging by a thread: exploring the features of nonresponse in an online young adult cancer survivorship support community
verfasst von: Brittani Crook
Elizabeth M. Glowacki
Brad Love
Barbara L. Jones
Catherine Fiona Macpherson
Rebecca H. Johnson
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 1932-2259
Elektronische ISSN: 1932-2267
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-015-0465-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Springer Medizin

Hanging by a thread: exploring the features of nonresponse in an online young adult cancer survivorship support community

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

CUP-Syndrom: Künstliche Intelligenz kann Primärtumor finden

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Update Onkologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

Pregnancy-associated cardiomyopathy in survivors of childhood cancer

Incidence of second primary cancers in North Portugal—a population-based study

Surveillance and beliefs about follow-up care among long-term breast cancer survivors: a comparison of primary care and oncology providers

Elucidating patient-perceived role in “decision-making” among African Americans receiving lung cancer care through a county safety-net system

Dismantling the present and future threats of testicular cancer: a grounded theory of positive and negative adjustment trajectories

Social-ecological correlates of physical activity in kidney cancer survivors

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

CUP-Syndrom: Künstliche Intelligenz kann Primärtumor finden

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Update Onkologie