Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp 1772–1788 | Cite as

Using online resources in health co-inquiry: A bifurcated method for analyzing stakeholder narratives

  • Lauren S. SeifertEmail author
  • Kara Kaelber
  • Kathleen Flaherty
  • Cory Kromer-Edwards
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Health Co-Inquiry is a process whereby stakeholders in management of chronic health (or mental health) conditions collaborate, with efforts toward stakeholder activation, person-centeredness, evidence-based practice, and integrated care. With rapid growth of Internet use by the general population in the new millennium, persons with chronic conditions and their caregivers, friends, family, and health providers may be using the Internet more in order to seek information, share advice, and give or find support and services. Thus, the Internet can provide an important avenue for Health Co-Inquiry and for researchers who want to know about stakeholder experiences. A fundamental aim of the current authors’ “Health Co-Inquiry Project” is to better understand stakeholder experiences in chronic conditions through their online narratives. Here we report, specifically, about our development of a Bifurcated Method for analyzing narratives online. It involves: (1) thematic analysis of narratives from publicly available blogs, forums, and other websites related to chronic health conditions, and (2) creation of a computer program that “crawls” the URLs to locate and count the frequencies of general health and condition-specific terms and provide pictorial representations of the relative frequencies of words on a web page. The Bifurcated Method is novel in social research, using online forums as data, evaluating them thematically, and crawling them with a computer program that quantitizes specified search terms. One benefit is comparison of results from the two sub-parts to look for apparently convergent and divergent information across the two prongs of analysis. Safeguards include removing stakeholder monikers from quoted narratives, and striving to use only publicly available URLs. The present report provides details about the Bifurcated Method and considers limitations of the approach for those who might use it. Specific results for each health condition from the larger Health Co-Inquiry Project are provided elsewhere.

Keywords

Health co-inquiry Chronic health conditions Patient activation Person-centered care Evidence-based practice Research methods 

Notes

Funding Information

This study is supported in part through an institutional grant from The National Science Foundation to Malone University. CC-NIE Award Number #1541342. The current authors received a grant sub-award from it. Special thanks go to M. Adam Klemman, Jim Shaffer, Jason Courter, and Shawn Campbell (recipients of the institutional grant), who utilized it to help enhance our data collection. Additional thanks go to Camden Baucke, J. “Harley” Ferrel, Tess Schmucker, Matthew Beechy, Rosa Cleaver, Tyler Bowman, Kathryn Bash, and Evan Zorn, for their assistance searching for URLs and composing dictionaries for specific health conditions. Special thanks go to Rosella Groves for graphics and to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author indicates that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The current research was supported by a grant sub-award via an institutional grant from the National Science Foundation, CC-NIE Award Number #1541342. Additional information about the grant can be found in the acknowledgements that accompany this article. The study was reviewed and approved through an expedited review procedure via our institution’s IRB. The study protocol is compliant with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and later addenda, the Belmont Report, and Title 45 Part 46 of the US Code of Federal Regulations.

Informed Consent

The current study uses online posts that are publicly available. The data are artifacts, and no contact with live participants occurred during data collection. As such, informed consent was not sought. However, as a research safeguard, all online users whose posts were used as data were assigned random participant numbers. Thus, no online monikers are provided in our published reports, and this helps to create a buffer between readers of our published reports and the online posters.

References

  1. Bach, L. A. (2008). Blogging during terminal care: Communication, color schemes, and creating a community. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26(27), 4504–4506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, H. E. (2009). A life course disability model for understanding aging with a chronic condition. Unplublished doctoral dissertation. Miami, OH: Miami University.Google Scholar
  3. Bratu, S. (2017). The inexorable shift towards an increasingly hostile cyberspace environment: The adverse social impact of online trolling behavior. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 9(2), 88–94.  https://doi.org/10.22381/CRLSJ9220176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, Nj: SAGE.Google Scholar
  7. Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, K. C., Rickett, E. M., & Masi, C. M. (2005). Sociality, spirituality, and meaning making; Chicago health, aging, and social relations study. Review of General Psychology, 9(2), 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chowdhury, P.P, Mawokomatanda, T., Xu, F., Gamble, S., Flegel, D., Peirannunzi, C.,…Town, M. (2016). Surveillance for certain health behaviors, chronic diseases, and conditions, access to health care, and use of preventive health services among states and selected local areas --behavioral risk factor surveillance system, United States, 2012. US Department of Health and Human Services MMWR, 65(4), 1–88.Google Scholar
  9. Chung, D. S., & Kim, S. (2008). Blogging activity among cancer oatients and their companions: Uses, gratifications, and predictors of outcomes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clemence, M. (1966). Existentialism: A philosophy of commitment. The American Journal of Nursing, 66(3), 500–505.Google Scholar
  11. Coulson, N. S. (2005). Receiving social support online: An analysis of a computer-mediated support group for individuals living with irritable bowel syndrome. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 8(6), 580–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulson, N. S., & Greenwood, N. (2012). Families affected by childhood cancer: An analysis of the provision of social support within online support groups. Child: Care, Health and Development, 38(6), 870–877.Google Scholar
  13. Coulson, N. S., & Knibb, R. C. (2007). Coping with food allergy: Exploring the role of the online support group. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(1), 145–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cutrona, C. E., & Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19, 154–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis, K., Schoenbaum, S. C., & Audet, A.-M. (2005). A 2020 vision of patient-centered primary care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(10), 953–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeNardis, L., & Hackly, A. M. (2015). Internet governance by social media platforms. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 761–770.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dutta, M. J., & Feng, H. (2007). Health orientation and disease state predictors of online health support group use. Health Communication, 22(2), 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engel, G. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for medicine. Science, 196(4286), 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Falvo, D. R. (2014). Medical and psychosocial aspects of chronic illness and disability (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
  20. FDA Approves Third (2018). In How does migraine affect your body? Retrieved https://www.webmd.com/migraines-headaches/news/20180928/fda-approves-third-of-new-migraine-drugs.
  21. Frerichs, L., Lich, K. H., Dave, G., & Corbie-Smith, G. (2016). Integrating systems science and community-based participatory action research to achieve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2), 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Greene, J. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Heilferty, C. M. (2011). Ethical considerations in the study of online illness narratives: A qualitative review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(5), 945–953.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05563.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hibbard, J. H., Greene, J., & Tusler, M. (2009). Improving the outcomes of disease-management by tailoring care to the patient’s level of activation. American Journal of Managed Care, 15(6), 353–360.Google Scholar
  26. Hibbard, J. H., Mahoney, E. R., Stock, R., & Tusler, M. (2007). Do increases in patient activation result in improved self-management behaviors? Health Services Research, 42(4), 1443–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hibbard, J. H., & Tusler, M. (2007). Assessing activation stage and employing a “next steps” approach to supporting patient self-management. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, 30(1), 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. International Collaboration for Participatory Health Research. (2016). About us. Retrieved from http://www.icphr.org.
  29. Internet Users (2019). In Internet Live Stats. Retrieved from http://www.Internetlivestats.com/Internet-users/
  30. Jaborooty, M. P., & Baker, P. (2017). Resisting silence: Moments of empowerment in Iranian women’s blogs. Gender and Language, 11(1), 77–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones, E. B., & Ku, L. (2015). Sharing a playbook: Integrated care in community health centers in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), 2028–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, S., & Chung, D. S. (2007). Characteristics of cancer blog users. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 95(4), 445–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowney, A. C., & O’Brien, T. (2012). The landscape of blogging in palliative care. Palliative Medicine, 26(6), 858–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 475–482.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410364740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merry, S. K., & Simon, A. (2012). Living and lurking on LiveJournal: The benefits of active and non-active membership. ASLIB Proceedings, 64(3), 241–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Napoli, P. M. (2015) Social media and the public interest: Governance of news platforms in the realm of Individual and algorithmic gatekeepers. Telecommunications Policy, 39, 751–760.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nonnecke, B., Andrews, D., & Preece, J. (2006). Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behaviors. Electronic Commerce Research, 6(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nurjono, M., Valentijn, P.P., Bautista, M.C., Wei, L.Y., & Vrijhoef, H.J.M. (2016). A prospective validation study of a rainbow model of integrated care measurement tool in Singapore. International Journal of Integrated Care, 16. Retrieved from www.ijic.org.
  39. Obar, J. A. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge: An introduction to the special issue. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 745–750.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oh, H.J., & Lee, B. (2012). The effect of computer-mediated social support in online communities on patient empowerment and doctor-patient communication. Health Communication, 27, 30-41. Doi:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.567449 in Singapore. International Journal of Integrated Care, 16. Retrieved from www.ijic.org
  41. Paulus, T. M., & Varga, M. A. (2015). “Please know that you are not alone with your pain”: Responses to newcomer posts in an online grief support forum. Death Studies, 39(10), 633–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pew Research Center. (2013). The demographics of social media users – 2012. Washington, DC: Authors Retrieved from http://boletines.prisadigital.com/PIP_SocialMediaUsers.pdf.Google Scholar
  43. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  44. Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809334210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Saunders, B., Kitzinger, J., & Kitzinger, C. (2015). Participant anonymity in the internet age: From theory to practice. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 12, 125–137.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.948697.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Seckin, G. (2011). Informational and decisional empowerment in online health support communities: Initial psychometric validation of the cyber info-decisional empowerment scale (CIDES) and preliminary data from administration of the scale. Support Care Cancer, 19, 2057–2061.  https://doi.org/10.1007/soo520-011-1249-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Seifert, L.S. (2015). Is there room for traditional science and action research in aging studies? Poster presented at the fifth annual conference of the society for Aging & Society, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  48. Seifert, L. S., Flaherty, K., & Trill, K. (2013). Beyond person-centered dementia care: The see-saw model for day-to-day interactions. Activities Directors’ Quarterly for Alzheimer’s and Other Dementia Patients, 14(2), 15–31.Google Scholar
  49. Seifert, L. S., & Seifert, C. A. (2017). Multi-method health Co-Inquiry: A case illustration for persons with chronic illness, caregivers, providers, and researchers. Current Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9676-7 Multi-Method Health Co-Inquiry: a Case Illustration for Persons with Chronic Illness, Caregivers, Providers, and Researchers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2018). Health Information Privacy: The Security Rule. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/index.html.
  51. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.Google Scholar
  53. World Health Organization. (2014). Factfiles: Non-communicable diseases. Retrieved from www.who.int/features/factfiles/noncommunicable_diseases/en/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Malone UniversityCantonUSA
  2. 2.University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations