Cancer experience in metaphors: patients, carers, professionals, students - a scoping review.

The use of metaphors to talk about cancer experiences has attracted much research and debate, especially in the case of military metaphors. However, questions remain about what metaphors are used by different populations for different aspects of the cancer experience. This scoping review aims to answer them.We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Eligible sources include peer-reviewed scientific research published in English between 2013 and 2023, investigating patterns of metaphor use from adult populations (age ≥18) for cancer-related topics, such as cancer itself, the general experience of being ill, treatment, and people and relationships.Out of 1929 articles identified, 30 met the criteria, spanning over different populations. While most papers focused on cancer in general, some focused on specific cancer types, such as breast cancer. Both spontaneous and elicited data were collected in ten languages: mostly English (N=12), Swedish (N=3) and Arabic (N=3). The identified metaphors were subsumed under various broad categories, including particularly violence and journey. Other categories include education and non-human animate entity for the cancer itself, confinement and deprivation and cleanliness for the general experience of being ill with cancer, Poison and gardening for cancer treatment, and distance for patients' social relationships.It was found that metaphors help to identify how patients describe experiences of vulnerability and empowerment. To provide patient-centred care, clinicians and researchers should avoid blanket conclusions about helpful or unhelpful metaphors, but consider the ways in which different metaphors are used by different populations in different contexts.

Seatbelts and raincoats, or banks and castles: Investigating the impact of vaccine metaphors.

While metaphors are frequently used to address misconceptions and hesitancy about vaccines, it is unclear how effective they are in health messaging. Using a between-subject, pretest/posttest design, we investigated the impact of explanatory metaphors on people's attitudes toward vaccines. We recruited participants online in the US (N = 301) and asked them to provide feedback on a (fictional) health messaging campaign, which we organized around responses to five common questions about vaccines. All participants completed a 24-item measure of their attitudes towards vaccines before and after evaluating the responses to the five questions. We created three possible response passages for each vaccine question: two included extended explanatory metaphors, and one contained a literal response (i.e., no explanatory metaphors). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either all metaphors or all 'literal' responses. They rated each response on several dimensions and then described how they would answer the target question about vaccines if it were posed by a friend. Results showed participants in both conditions rated most messages as being similarly understandable, informative, and persuasive, with a few notable exceptions. Participants in both conditions also exhibited a similar small-but significant-increase in favorable attitudes towards vaccines from pre- to posttest. Notably, participants in the metaphor condition provided longer free-response answers to the question posed by a hypothetical friend, with different metaphors being reused to different extents and in different ways in their responses. Taken together, our findings suggest that: (a) Brief health messaging passages may have the potential to improve attitudes towards vaccines, (b) Metaphors neither enhance nor reduce this attitude effect, (c) Metaphors may be more helpful than literal language in facilitating further social communication about vaccines.

Pro-vaccination personal narratives in response to online hesitancy about the HPV vaccine: The challenge of tellability.

Experimental studies have shown that narratives can be effective persuasive tools in addressing vaccine hesitancy, including regarding the vaccine against the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is transmitted via sexual contact and can cause cervical cancer. This paper presents an analysis of a thread from the online parenting forum Mumsnet Talk where an initially undecided Original Poster is persuaded to vaccinate their child against HPV by a respondent's narrative of cervical cancer that they describe as difficult to share. This paper considers this particular narrative alongside all other narratives that precede the decision announced on the Mumsnet thread. It shows how producing pro-vaccination narratives about HPV involves challenges regarding 'tellability' - what makes the events in a narrative reportable or worth telling. We suggest that this has implications for the context-dependent nature of tellability, the role of parenting forums in vaccination-related discussions, and narrative-based communication about vaccinations more generally.

Narratives, Information and Manifestations of Resistance to Persuasion in Online Discussions of HPV Vaccination.

There are both theoretical accounts and empirical evidence for the fact that, in health communication, narratives (story telling) may have a persuasive advantage when compared with information (the provision of facts). The dominant explanation for this potential advantage is that narratives inhibit people's resistance to persuasion, particularly in the form of counterarguing. Evidence in this area to date has most often been gathered through lab or field experiments. In the current study we took a novel approach, gathering our data from naturally-occurring, non-experimental and organically evolving online interactions about vaccinations. We focus on five threads from the parenting forum Mumsnet Talk that centered on indecision about the HPV vaccination. Our analysis revealed that narratives and information were used by posters in similar quantities as a means of providing vaccination-related advice. We also found similar frequencies of direct engagement with both narratives and information. However, our findings showed that narratives resulted in a significantly higher proportion of posts exhibiting supportive engagement, whereas information resulted in posts exhibiting a significantly higher proportion of challenges, including counterarguing and other manifestations of posters' resistance to persuasion. The proportions of supportive versus challenging engagement also varied depending on the topic and vaccine stance of narratives. Notwithstanding contextual explanations for these patterns, our findings, based on this original approach of using naturalistic data, provide a novel kind of evidence for the potential of narratives to inhibit counterarguing in authentic health-related discourse.

Improving Peer Online Forums (iPOF): protocol for a realist evaluation of peer online mental health forums to inform practice and policy.

INTRODUCTION: Peer online mental health forums are commonly used and offer accessible support. Positive and negative impacts have been reported by forum members and moderators, but it is unclear why these impacts occur, for whom and in which forums. This multiple method realist study explores underlying mechanisms to understand how forums work for different people. The findings will inform codesign of best practice guidance and policy tools to enhance the uptake and effectiveness of peer online mental health forums. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In workstream 1, we will conduct a realist synthesis, based on existing literature and interviews with approximately 20 stakeholders, to generate initial programme theories about the impacts of forums on members and moderators and mechanisms driving these. Initial theories that are relevant for forum design and implementation will be prioritised for testing in workstream 2.Workstream 2 is a multiple case study design with mixed methods with several online mental health forums differing in contextual features. Quantitative surveys of forum members, qualitative interviews and Corpus-based Discourse Analysis and Natural Language Processing of forum posts will be used to test and refine programme theories. Final programme theories will be developed through novel triangulation of the data.Workstream 3 will run alongside workstreams 1 and 2. Key stakeholders from participating forums, including members and moderators, will be recruited to a Codesign group. They will inform the study design and materials, refine and prioritise theories, and codesign best policy and practice guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Solihull Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 314029). Findings will be reported in accordance with RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) guidelines, published as open access and shared widely, along with codesigned tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 62469166; the protocol for the realist synthesis in workstream one is prospectively registered at PROSPERO CRD42022352528.

Corpus linguistics and clinical psychology: Investigating personification in first-person accounts of voice-hearing.

Triangulating corpus linguistic approaches with other (linguistic and non-linguistic) approaches enhances "both the rigour of corpus linguistics and its incorporation into all kinds of research" (McEnery & Hardie, 2012:227). Our study investigates an important area of mental health research: the experiences of those who hear voices that others cannot hear, and particularly the ways in which those voices are described as person-like. We apply corpus methods to augment the findings of a qualitative approach to 40 interviews with voice-hearers, whereby each interview was coded as involving 'minimal' or 'complex' personification of voices. Our analysis provides linguistic evidence in support of the qualitative coding of the interviews, but also goes beyond a binary approach by revealing different types and degrees of personification of voices, based on how they are referred to and described by voice-hearers. We relate these findings to concepts that inform therapeutic interventions in clinical psychology.

Use of an Online Forum for Relatives of People With Psychosis and Bipolar Disorder: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder experience high levels of distress but are typically not offered the support they need. Online peer forums may offer a solution, but knowledge about who uses them, how, and why is limited. This study reported on online forum use during the Relatives Education and Coping Toolkit (REACT) trial. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to report who used the forum and why; how sociodemographic factors are associated with participation; the relationship among frequency, type of use, and outcomes; and how the forum was used. METHODS: The relationships between key sociodemographic characteristics, levels of forum use, and distress were statistically analyzed. We used thematic and semantic analyses to understand the reasons for relatives joining the forum and the key topics initiated by them. We also used the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language Semantic Analysis System to compare how relatives and REACT supporters (moderators) used the forum. RESULTS: A total of 348 participants with full forum use data from REACT were included in this study. The forum was accessed by 59.4% (207/348) of the relatives across the entire age range, with no significant associations between sociodemographic factors and forum participation, or between level or type of use and relatives' distress levels. Relatives joined the forum primarily to find people in similar circumstances, express concerns, and talk about stressful events. Relatives were most concerned about recent events, negative emotions linked to caring, experiences of conflict or threat, and concerns about suicide. These posts underscored both the challenges the relatives were facing and the fact that they felt safe sharing them in this context. CONCLUSIONS: Although only a proportion of REACT participants engaged actively with its forum, they were widely distributed across age and other sociodemographic groupings. Relatives used the forum for information, support, and guidance and to offer detailed information about their experiences. The topics raised highlighted the burden carried by relatives and the potential value of easy-access, moderated, peer-supported forums in helping relatives to manage the challenges they faced.

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.

"Not Soldiers but Fire-fighters" - Metaphors and Covid-19.

Metaphors have been widely used in communication about the Covid-19 pandemic. The virus has been described, for example, as an "enemy" to be "beaten," a "tsunami" on health services and even as "glitter" that "gets everywhere." This paper discusses different metaphors for the pandemic, and explains why they are used and why they matter. War metaphors are considered first, as they were particularly frequent and controversial at the beginning of the pandemic. An overview of alternative metaphors is then provided, drawing from the "#ReframeCovid" crowd-sourced multilingual collection of metaphors for Covid-19. Finally, based on both the #ReframeCovid collection and a systematic analysis of a large corpus of news articles in English, it is suggested that Fire metaphors are particularly appropriate and versatile in communication about different aspects of the pandemic, including contagion and different public health measures aimed at reducing it.

Person-ness of voices in lived experience accounts of psychosis: combining literary linguistics and clinical psychology.

In this paper, we use concepts and insights from the literary linguistic study of story-world characters to shed new light on the nature of voices as social agents in the context of lived experience accounts of voice-hearing. We demonstrate a considerable overlap between approaches to voices as social agents in clinical psychology and the perception of characters in the linguistic study of fiction, but argue that the literary linguistic approach facilitates a much more nuanced account of the different degrees of person-ness voices might be perceived to possess. We propose a scalar Characterisation Model of Voices and demonstrate its explanatory potential by comparing two lived experience descriptions of voices in interviews with voice-hearers in a psychosis intervention. The new insights into the phenomenology of voice-hearing achieved by applying the model are relevant to the understanding of voice-hearing as well as to therapeutic interventions.

A linguistic approach to the psychosis continuum: (dis)similarities and (dis)continuities in how clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers talk about their voices.

Introduction: "Continuum" approaches to psychosis have generated reports of similarities and differences in voice-hearing in clinical and non-clinical populations at the cohort level, but not typically examined overlap or degrees of difference between groups. Methods: We used a computer-aided linguistic approach to explore reports of voice-hearing by a clinical group (Early Intervention in Psychosis service-users; N = 40) and a non-clinical group (spiritualists; N = 27). We identify semantic categories of terms statistically overused by one group compared with the other, and by each group compared to a control sample of non-voice-hearing interview data (log likelihood (LL) value 6.63+=p < .01; effect size measure: log ratio 1.0+). We consider whether individual values support a continuum model. Results: Notwithstanding significant cohort-level differences, there was considerable continuity in language use. Reports of negative affect were prominent in both groups (p < .01, log ratio: 1.12+). Challenges of cognitive control were also evident in both cohorts, with references to "disengagement" accentuated in service-users (p < .01, log ratio: 1.14+). Conclusion: A corpus linguistic approach to voice-hearing provides new evidence of differences between clinical and non-clinical groups. Variability at the individual level provides substantial evidence of continuity with implications for cognitive mechanisms underlying voice-hearing.

Images as catalysts for meaning-making in medical pain encounters: a multidisciplinary analysis.

The challenge for those treating or witnessing pain is to find a way of crossing the chasm of meaning between them and the person living with pain. This paper proposes that images can strengthen agency in the person with pain, particularly but not only in the clinical setting, and can create a shared space within which to negotiate meaning. It draws on multidisciplinary analyses of unique material resulting from two fine art/medical collaborations in London, UK, in which the invisible experience of pain was made visible in the form of co-created photographic images, which were then made available to other patients as a resource to use in specialist consultations. In parallel with the pain encounters it describes, the paper weaves together the insights of specialists from a range of disciplines whose methodologies and priorities sometimes conflict and sometimes intersect to make sense of each other's findings. A short section of video footage where images were used in a pain consultation is examined in fine detail from the perspective of each discipline. The analysis shows how the images function as 'transactional objects' and how their use coincides with an increase in the amount of talk and emotional disclosure on the part of the patient and greater non-verbal affiliative behaviour on the part of the doctor. These findings are interpreted from the different disciplinary perspectives, to build a complex picture of the multifaceted, contradictory and paradoxical nature of pain experience, the drive to communicate it and the potential role of visual images in clinical settings.

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.

Henry's voices: the representation of auditory verbal hallucinations in an autobiographical narrative.

The book Henry's Demons (2011) recounts the events surrounding Henry Cockburn's diagnosis of schizophrenia from the alternating perspectives of Henry himself and his father Patrick. In this paper, we present a detailed linguistic analysis of Henry's first-person accounts of experiences that could be described as auditory verbal hallucinations. We first provide a typology of Henry's voices, taking into account who or what is presented as speaking, what kinds of utterances they produce and any salient stylistic features of these utterances. We then discuss the linguistically distinctive ways in which Henry represents these voices in his narrative. We focus on the use of Direct Speech as opposed to other forms of speech presentation, the use of the sensory verbs hear and feel and the use of 'non-factive' expressions such as I thought and as if. We show how different linguistic representations may suggest phenomenological differences between the experience of hallucinatory voices and the perception of voices that other people can also hear. We, therefore, propose that linguistic analysis is ideally placed to provide in-depth accounts of the phenomenology of voice hearing and point out the implications of this approach for clinical practice and mental healthcare.

Pragmatic failure, mind style and characterisation in fiction about autism.

This article presents an analysis of different types of pragmatic failure in the interactional behaviour of the 'autistic' protagonists of three recent novels. Three main types of pragmatic failure occur across all three novels: problems with informativeness and relevance in conversational contributions; problems with face management resulting in unintentional impolite behaviours; and problems with the interpretation of figurative language. These problems are salient and frequent enough to contribute to the projection of distinctive mind styles, and more generally to the characterisation of the protagonists as individuals with communication and socialisation difficulties that are likely to both reflect and reinforce general perceptions of autism-spectrum disorders. It is also argued that pragmatic failure contributes to the potential defamiliarisation of 'normal' communication, which is presented as being fraught with obscurity, ambiguity and insincerity.