The Association of Patients' Primary Interaction Goals with Attributions for their Doctors' Responses in Conversations about Online Health Research

Cancer diagnosis is often an unexpected, traumatic and overwhelming event for patients, and many seek clarity by researching their condition on the Internet. Conversations between patients and health care providers about patients' Internet research could be supportive and helpful, but others ma...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Applied Communication Research 2012-08, Vol.40 (3), p.271-288
Main Authors: Sabee, Christina M., Bylund, Carma L., Weber, Jennifer Gueguen, Sonet, Ellen
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Associations
Attributions
Cancer
Communication research
Doctor-Patient Interaction
Health education
Health policy
Interaction Goals
Internet
Medical diagnosis
Medical research
Medical service
Online Health Information
Patients
Physician patient relationships
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Cancer diagnosis is often an unexpected, traumatic and overwhelming event for patients, and many seek clarity by researching their condition on the Internet. Conversations between patients and health care providers about patients' Internet research could be supportive and helpful, but others may be discouraging. We explored potential differences in these conversations by soliciting open-ended responses from 238 cancer patients about their experiences talking with their health care providers about their Internet research. Our content analysis of those responses revealed that patients had 7 different goals for discussing Internet research with their health care provider, which included: seeking opinion or advice, verifying information, managing impression, learning, and testing. Additionally, patients' perceptions about the reasons (attributions) their health care providers responded in the way they did to the Internet information included: knowledge or familiarity with the field, inexperience or lack of knowledge, open to new treatments or options, strict/particular about treatments or interpretations, collaborative/involved in decision making. Finally, we found that goals patients had for the conversations accounted, in part, for differences in the attributions that patients made. We proposed ways that health care providers and patients alike may strategize to ensure more supportive conversations about their research and health conditions.
ISSN:0090-9882
1479-5752
DOI:10.1080/00909882.2012.679671