Healthcare Provider-Healthcare Receiver Risk Communication: A Role-Information Matching Perspective.

IF 3 3区医学 Q1 COMMUNICATION

Health Communication Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1080/10410236.2025.2465804

Jingru Huang, Qingzhou Sun, Yuwei Liu, Herizo Jose Andre Rakotondrampanana, Xiang Yu, Xiaofen Yu

{"title":"Healthcare Provider-Healthcare Receiver Risk Communication: A Role-Information Matching Perspective.","authors":"Jingru Huang, Qingzhou Sun, Yuwei Liu, Herizo Jose Andre Rakotondrampanana, Xiang Yu, Xiaofen Yu","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2025.2465804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Distortions in healthcare provider - healthcare receiver communication often lead to cognitive bias, diagnostic errors, and medical conflicts. The information concretization and information abstraction hypotheses present contradictory risk communication models, which makes it difficult to determine clinical references for healthcare provider - healthcare receiver risk communication. We proposed and demonstrated a hypothesis of matching healthcare provider - healthcare receiver roles with concrete - abstract risk information. The processing accuracy of concrete (e.g. frequency) and abstract risk information (e.g. probability) was compared between healthcare providers and healthcare receivers. The results showed that healthcare providers tended to estimate abstract risk information more accurately than concrete risk information, whereas healthcare receivers tended to estimate concrete risk information more accurately than abstract risk information. This tendency was observed for textual (Study 1), graphical (Study 2), and role-playing (Study 3) risk communication. The processing fluency mediated the interaction of role and risk representation in risk estimation accuracy (Study 3). These findings provide new insights into the theoretical disputes regarding healthcare provider - receiver risk communication and effective communication strategies.","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2465804","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Distortions in healthcare provider - healthcare receiver communication often lead to cognitive bias, diagnostic errors, and medical conflicts. The information concretization and information abstraction hypotheses present contradictory risk communication models, which makes it difficult to determine clinical references for healthcare provider - healthcare receiver risk communication. We proposed and demonstrated a hypothesis of matching healthcare provider - healthcare receiver roles with concrete - abstract risk information. The processing accuracy of concrete (e.g. frequency) and abstract risk information (e.g. probability) was compared between healthcare providers and healthcare receivers. The results showed that healthcare providers tended to estimate abstract risk information more accurately than concrete risk information, whereas healthcare receivers tended to estimate concrete risk information more accurately than abstract risk information. This tendency was observed for textual (Study 1), graphical (Study 2), and role-playing (Study 3) risk communication. The processing fluency mediated the interaction of role and risk representation in risk estimation accuracy (Study 3). These findings provide new insights into the theoretical disputes regarding healthcare provider - receiver risk communication and effective communication strategies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Health Communication Multiple-

CiteScore

8.20

自引率

10.30%

发文量

184

期刊介绍： As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.