Hanging by a thread: exploring the features of nonresponse in an online young adult cancer survivorship support community
- 343 Downloads
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsYoung adult Cancer Online communities Nonresponse LIWC
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of Seattle Children’s Hospital, which provided funding for this research through an award from Seattle Children’s Hospital d/b/a Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, under funding provided by the Teen Cancer Program. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Seattle Children’s. Seattle Children’s neither reviewed nor approved the manuscript for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.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.Google Scholar
- 2.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.Google Scholar
- 6.Fox S. (2010) Cancer 2.0: a summary of recent research. Available at: http://pewrsr.ch/Cancer20 (accessed 24 February 2015).
- 7.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).
- 9.Gunawardena CN. Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. Int J Educ Telecommun. 1995;1(2):147–66.Google Scholar
- 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 20.Cramton C. Attribution in distributed work groups. In: Hinds P, Kiesler S, editors. Distributed work. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002. p. 191–212.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 27.Dino A., Reysen S., Branscombe NR. Online interactions between group members who differ in status. J Lang Soc Psychol. 2008.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 32.Weintraub W. Verbal behavior: adaptation and psychopathology. New York: Springer; 1981.Google Scholar
- 36.Brown P, Levinson S. Politeness: some universals in language. Cambridge: Cambridge University; 1987.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 43.Pennebaker JW, Francis ME, Booth RJ. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): LIWC2001 Manual. Mahwah: Erlbaum Publishers; 2001.Google Scholar
- 45.Pennebaker JW., Chung CK., Ireland M., Gonzales A. and Booth RJ. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. LIWC2007 Manual. 2007.Google Scholar
- 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Ridings CM and Gefen D. Virtual community attraction: why people hang out online. J Comput-Mediat Commun. 2004; 10(1).Google Scholar
- 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.
- 55.Mishel MH. Uncertainty in illness. Image: J Nurs Sch. 1988;20(4):225–32.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar