Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37397294›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

The impact of bilinguality and language context on the understanding of epistemic adverbs in health communication: the case of English and Russian.

Vanda Nissen, Renata F I Meuter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Vanda NissenSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Renata F I MeuterSchool of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: To explore how English epistemic adverbs, as used in health communication, are understood by speakers depending on their first language (L1) and language context. Methods: We used an online dissimilarity rating task with paired doctors' opinions which differed only with respect to the embedded epistemic adverbs (e.g., This treatment Results: The C-MDS analyses returned statistically acceptable results. Intragroup consensus was evident for all speaker groups. They all clustered the high confidence adverbs ( Conclusion: The subtle differences in how adverbs of likelihood and doubt are understood in health communication suggest extra care is needed when conveying risk and uncertainty to patients from diverse linguistic and/or cultural backgrounds to ensure mutual understanding and mitigate against miscommunication. The impact of L1 and language context on one's understanding highlights the need to explore more widely how epistemic adverbs are understood by diverse populations and, in doing so, improve healthcare communication practices.

Indexed as

bilingual patientscultural consensus analysisepistemic adverbsmultidimensional scalingsemantic spaceuncertainty in health communication

Identifiers

PMID37397294
PMCPMC10313332

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.