Hierarchies of knowledge in responses to messages of newbies in online health support groups

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Patient Education and Counseling Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-18 DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2025.108661
Carolina Figueras Bates , Barbara De Cock
{"title":"Hierarchies of knowledge in responses to messages of newbies in online health support groups","authors":"Carolina Figueras Bates ,&nbsp;Barbara De Cock","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2025.108661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To determine how hierarchies of knowledge are established in two online health forums: one for recovery from eating disorders and the other for diabetes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>28 threads, with a total of 55,462 words were collected from the eating disorders (ED) forum. From the diabetes (D) forum, 18 threads were extracted, with a total of 51,397 words.</div><div>We performed a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the structures and mechanisms to convey experiential knowledge and to deliver advice.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The frequency of strategies such as providing facts about the illness, sharing personal stories and using medical terminology was higher in the diabetes forum than in the eating disorder forum. In the category of providing advice, ED and D responders behaved as experts and formulated advice in an authoritative way by resorting to imperatives and deontics of obligation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In both fora, epistemic and emotional experiences are presented. The goal in each site is the creation of shared understanding among their members. Experiential knowledge is highly personal, and it is never depicted as antagonistic to medical expertise.</div></div><div><h3>Practice Implications</h3><div>Experiential knowledge is complex and rich and can complement medical expertise in the treatment of long-term and/or chronic health conditions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"134 ","pages":"Article 108661"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Education and Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073839912500028X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To determine how hierarchies of knowledge are established in two online health forums: one for recovery from eating disorders and the other for diabetes.

Methods

28 threads, with a total of 55,462 words were collected from the eating disorders (ED) forum. From the diabetes (D) forum, 18 threads were extracted, with a total of 51,397 words.
We performed a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the structures and mechanisms to convey experiential knowledge and to deliver advice.

Results

The frequency of strategies such as providing facts about the illness, sharing personal stories and using medical terminology was higher in the diabetes forum than in the eating disorder forum. In the category of providing advice, ED and D responders behaved as experts and formulated advice in an authoritative way by resorting to imperatives and deontics of obligation.

Conclusion

In both fora, epistemic and emotional experiences are presented. The goal in each site is the creation of shared understanding among their members. Experiential knowledge is highly personal, and it is never depicted as antagonistic to medical expertise.

Practice Implications

Experiential knowledge is complex and rich and can complement medical expertise in the treatment of long-term and/or chronic health conditions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对在线健康支持小组中新手信息的回应中的知识层次
目的确定两个在线健康论坛(一个是关于饮食失调的康复,另一个是关于糖尿病的康复)的知识层次是如何建立的。方法从饮食失调论坛中抽取28篇帖子,共计55,462个单词。从糖尿病论坛中提取了18条帖子,共计51397个单词。我们对结构和机制进行了定量和定性分析,以传达经验知识并提供建议。结果在糖尿病论坛中,提供有关疾病的事实、分享个人故事和使用医学术语等策略的频率高于饮食失调论坛。在提供建议的范畴中,急症室和急症室响应者表现得像专家,并通过诉诸命令和义务的道义,以权威的方式制定建议。结论在这两个论坛中,都呈现了认知和情感体验。每个站点的目标都是在其成员之间建立共同的理解。经验知识是高度个人化的,它从不被描述为与医学专业知识对立。实践意义经验知识是复杂而丰富的,可以补充治疗长期和/或慢性健康状况的医学专业知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Education and Counseling
Patient Education and Counseling 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
11.40%
发文量
384
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Patient Education and Counseling is an interdisciplinary, international journal for patient education and health promotion researchers, managers and clinicians. The journal seeks to explore and elucidate the educational, counseling and communication models in health care. Its aim is to provide a forum for fundamental as well as applied research, and to promote the study of organizational issues involved with the delivery of patient education, counseling, health promotion services and training models in improving communication between providers and patients.
期刊最新文献
Podcast-based patient preparation: Enhanced efficiency or constrained dialogue? ‘There is no need to worry’: How general practitioners integrate patient concerns into the shared decision-making dialogue Handling communication challenges at the emergency department entry: Insights from a Belgian hospital Patient-oriented navigation in stroke and lung cancer patients: Results on feasibility and efficacy of two randomized controlled trials in Germany Systematic review of the association between genetic/genomic literacy and testing decisions: Limited evidence and a need for standardized research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1