Language matters: representations of 'heart failure' in English discourse-a large-scale linguistic study.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) has a lower public profile compared with other serious health conditions, notably cancer. This discourse analysis study investigates the extent to which HF is discussed in general contemporary English, UK parliamentary debates and the ways in which HF is framed in discussions, when compared with two other serious health conditions, cancer and dementia. METHODS: The Oxford English Corpus (OEC) of 21st century English-language texts (2 billion words) and the UK Hansard Reports of parliamentary debates from 1945 to early 2021 were used to investigate the relative frequencies, contexts and use of the terms 'heart failure', 'cancer' and 'dementia'. RESULTS: In the OEC, the term 'heart failure' occurs 4.26 times per million words (pmw), 'dementia' occurs 3.68 times pmw and 'cancer' occurs 81.96 times pmw. Cancer is talked about 19 times more often than HF and 22 times more often than dementia. These are disproportionately high in relation to actual incidence: annual cancer incidence is 1.8 times that of the other conditions; annual cancer mortality is two times that caused by coronary heart disease (including HF) or dementia.'Heart failure' is used much less than 'cancer' in UK parliamentary debates (House of Commons and House of Lords) between 1945 and early 2021, and less than 'dementia' from 1990 onwards. Moreover, HF is even mentioned much less than pot-holes in UK roads and pavements. In 2018, for example, 'pot-hole/s' were mentioned over 10 times pmw, 37 times more often than 'heart failure', mentioned 0.28 times pmw. Discussions of HF are comparatively technical and formulaic, lacking survivor narratives that occur in discussions of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: HF is underdiscussed in contemporary English compared with cancer and dementia and underdiscussed in UK parliamentary debates, even compared with the less-obviously life-threatening topic of pot-holes in roads and pavements.

The online use of Violence and Journey metaphors by patients with cancer, as compared with health professionals: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequencies with which patients with cancer and health professionals use Violence and Journey metaphors when writing online; and to investigate the use of these metaphors by patients with cancer, in view of critiques of war-related metaphors for cancer and the adoption of the notion of the 'cancer journey' in UK policy documents. DESIGN: Computer-assisted quantitative and qualitative study of two data sets totalling 753 302 words. SETTING: A UK-based online forum for patients with cancer (500 134 words) and a UK-based website for health professionals (253 168 words). PARTICIPANTS: 56 patients with cancer writing online between 2007 and 2012; and 307 health professionals writing online between 2008 and 2013. RESULTS: Patients with cancer use both Violence metaphors and Journey metaphors approximately 1.5 times per 1000 words to describe their illness experience. In similar online writing, health professionals use each type of metaphor significantly less frequently. Patients' Violence metaphors can express and reinforce negative feelings, but they can also be used in empowering ways. Journey metaphors can express and reinforce positive feelings, but can also be used in disempowering ways. CONCLUSIONS: Violence metaphors are not by default negative and Journey metaphors are not by default a positive means of conceptualising cancer. A blanket rejection of Violence metaphors and an uncritical promotion of Journey metaphors would deprive patients of the positive functions of the former and ignore the potential pitfalls of the latter. Instead, greater awareness of the function (empowering or disempowering) of patients' metaphor use can lead to more effective communication about the experience of cancer.