Information Research

Vol. 30 No. 3 2025

The role of discussion sections in research articles: the case of health information-seeking studies

Reijo Savolainen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47989/ir30341812

Abstract

Introduction. Drawing on the ideas of genre analysis, this article elaborates the role of discussion sections as sites where researchers reflect their contributions to a particular field of study.

Method. A sample of 100 discussions sections of research articles examining health information seeking was scrutinized by means of descriptive quantitative analysis. To obtain a quantitative overview, the percentage distribution of the codes assigned to the 14 constituents of discussion sections was calculated. The main emphasis was laid on qualitative content analysis.

Analysis. The qualitative analysis focused on the content of diverse constituents of discussion sections, for example, interpreting individual research results and reflecting the theoretical contributions of the study. More specifically, the analysis focused on the variation in the constituents´ content. To achieve this, similarities and differences were identified in the ways in which the authors depicted such content per constituent, for example, while summarizing the key findings and reflecting the empirical contribution.

Results. The findings indicate that in discussion sections of research articles on health information-seeking studies, researchers direct their main attention to the interpretation of individual (key) findings. While reflecting their contributions to health-information studies, they also compare their findings in order to identify similarities and differences with prior studies. Moreover, they are active to propose topics for future research. In contrast, researchers in the above domain quite seldom employ analytically demanding strategies by explaining the similarities and differences or reflect the theoretical and methodological implications of their study.

Conclusion. Researchers prefer a conservative approach by seeking confirmatory support for their findings, rather than challenging them by presenting contrasting evidence.

Introduction

The discussion section occupies a central role in research articles because ideally such sections crystallize how the paper at hand has contributed to a research field. Annesley (2010, p. 1671) elucidates the significance of the discussion section by characterizing the reading habits of scientists. When reading a paper, they first tend to look at the abstract to get an overview of the topic and the purported findings. If the topic appears to be of interest, they move to the discussion section. If it is neither stimulating nor convincing about the meaning and importance of the findings, it does not really matter how the experiments were performed or what results were reported in the findings section.

So far, the features of discussion sections have mainly been analysed in language studies. Many of these investigations draw on genre analysis, with the intent to specify the schematic structures of discussion sections. As a result, diverse structural constituents referred to as moves and steps have been identified. Moves are linguistic and rhetorical constructs, and they include, for example, the comparison of findings with the observations of prior investigations and the specification of the theoretical contributions of the study. Steps are subconstituents of moves; examples of steps include the explanation of a surprising finding and the evaluation of the significance of an observation (Al-Shujairi et al., 2019). Since the 1980s, genre studies have offered a detailed picture of the structural features of discussion sections in diverse fields such as Applied Language Science, Computer Research, Psychology and Sociology. On the other hand, the studies scrutinizing moves and steps are limited in that the findings offer only a surface picture of the content of discussion sections. The results just provide illustrative examples of how the content of research findings appears within structural constituents.

The present investigation pioneers in the domain of information behaviour research by examining the role of discussion sections in a health information seeking studies. The findings deepen our understanding about how researchers examining the issues of health information seeking crystallize their contributions and reflect their significance. This domain was chosen for the study because it represents an established subdomain of information behaviour research (Given, Case and Willson, 2023, pp. 81-85). In general, health information seeking deals with the ways in which people identify, select and access information about their health, health promotion activities, risks to one’s health, and illness (Lambert and Loiselle, 2007; Mirzaei et al., 2021). Given the broad repertoire of the topics of health information seeking, it may be expected that the discussion sections of research articles offer a fertile ground for the analysis of the ways in which scholars reflect their contributions to this particular domain. The present investigation draws on the frameworks of genre-based studies referred above. However, different from them, the focus is placed on the constituents´ content in discussion sections. The findings are also relevant from the perspective of scholarly communication because the writing of research articles offers a major way to publish the results of scientific work.

The rest of the article is organized as follows. The literature review characterises further the nature of discussion sections and depicts the genre analytic approach to the topic. Thereafter, the research framework of the present investigation is specified, followed by the formulation of the research questions and the description of the empirical data and its analysis. Next, the research findings are reported, and their significance is reflected.

Literature review

The nature and role of discussions sections in research articles

Academic articles published in diverse fields are commonly divided into four parts: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, denoted as IMRaD or IMRD (Qin and Zhang, 2023, pp. 885-886). The IMRaD structure has become popular because it intuitively reflects the process of scientific discovery. As early as the 1970s, the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) used the IMRaD structure as a standard, and it became the written format for most journals (Qin and Zhang, 2023, p. 886). The IMRaD structure not only ensures the effective communication of scientific discoveries; it also can help readers to locate specific information efficiently without browsing the entire paper.

To examine the contributions offered by scholarly articles, researchers have analysed their diverse constituents such as abstracts (Capkin, 2024), introductory sections (Swales, 1981), results sections (Brett, 1994) and discussion sections (Al-Shujairi, 2021). The functions of the constituents can be put in a broader context by characterizing the practices and conventions of scholarly writing. Hyland (2008, p. 3) suggests that writers draw on the 'persuasive practices of their discipline, encoding ideas, employing warrants, and framing arguments in ways that their potential audience will find most convincing'. To this end, researchers writing discussion sections make attempts to specify how their results integrate with and contribute to disciplinary knowledge (Swales, 1990, p. 173). Usually, this is done by referring to the findings of prior studies in order to confirm their interpretation or explanation about an issue (Arsyad et al. 2020, p. 294). References to prior research are also made to contrast one´s findings with previous relevant studies.

The writing of effective discussion sections tends to be one of the most demanding tasks for novice researchers in particular (Angelini, 2023). While other sections of a research paper require orderly and logical writing, the composing of discussion section requires reflection and critical appraisal, as well as the synthesis and interpretation of the findings (Ghasemi et al., 2019). On the other hand, the discussion section can be the most interesting part for readers to consume because a well-written Discussion provides insights not found elsewhere in the paper (Conn, 2017). Masic (2018, p. 306) emphasizes the significance of the discussion section by characterizing it as 'the heart of every scientific article'. In an ideal case, the discussion section indicates clearly, what the study has added to the current knowledge and how it has enhanced understanding of the subject (Bavdekar, 2015, p. 41). In this regard, the final text paragraph of Discussion is particularly important because it offers an opportunity to crystallize the 'take-home message' of the study (Goulston, 2023).

The writing of the discussion section is also demanding in that the writers have to find an appropriate balance between the factual and speculative elements while reflecting their contributions. Ghasemi et al. (2019) recommend that researchers should go beyond the data while interpreting the findings, but not too far. They should provide insights; a task that is more than a mere comparison of the results with prior research. Skelton and Edwards (2000, pp. 1269-1270) take a more liberal view by suggesting that some speculative language in the discussion section is desirable. This is because researchers should not simply repeat their results already depicted in the findings section. The function of the Discussion is to discuss; it should therefore be discursive in nature. Even though there are no generally agreed guidelines in this regard, researchers have identified features characteristic of effective discussion sections. Kearney (2017, p. 290) likens them to a 'road map'. Readers are ‘grateful when authors clearly and concisely depict how the results do or do not move the science forward’. Readers’ confidence grows when the discussion provides a road map of where they are after this study, in comparison to where they were before (Kearney, 2017, p. 290).

The content of discussion sections has also been evaluated critically. Avidan, Ioannidis and Mashour (2019, p. 414) have drawn attention to the problematic features of discussion sections in medical journal articles. One of the weaknesses is a tendency to preferentially cite studies offering findings congruent with authors’ perspectives. Critique has also been addressed towards the fusion of the discussion and conclusion sections. Lamanauskas (2021, pp. 7-8) emphasizes that researchers should avoid sections titled as “Discussion and Conclusions” or “Discussion with Conclusion” in order not to create a blend containing all in one. This is because concluding sections serve a different end, that is, 'the purification of the gist of the research carried out' (Lamanauskas, 2021, pp. 7-8). Essentially, as Gray (2019) reminds us, the conclusion is the final opportunity for the authors to emphasize to the reader what the most important message of their study was, and impress upon them a particular recommendation, idea, or assertion.

Genre-based research approaches to the discussion sections

Since the 1980s, there have been a number of genre-based investigations examining the structure of the discussion sections in diverse fields such as Medicine (Smith, 1984), Political Science, Sociology, and History (Holmes, 1997), Applied Linguistics (Yang and Allison, 2003), Education (Lim, 2010), and Dentistry (Basturkmen, 2012). In general, a genre comprises 'a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes' (Swales, 1990, p. 58). These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. Many of the genre studies resemble each other in that they are based in the identification of moves as constituents of discussion sections. Moves are the building blocks of generic structures and can be used for the purpose of identifying the rhetorical and functional patterns in texts (Swales, 2004). Examples of moves include the comparison of findings with the observations of previous research and the recommendation for further research. Moves can incorporate subconstituents referred to as steps which denote the options writers select from to accomplish the moves (Swales, 1990). For example, if an individual Move is referred to as comparing findings with literature, constitutive steps of this move can be indicating consistency of findings with literature, and indicating inconsistency of findings with literature (Dobakhti, 2016, p. 1385).

The first framework depicting moves as constituents of discussion sections was developed by Diane Smith (1984). She proposed a four-move model based on a corpus constructed from British Medical Journal. The framework consisted of four moves: Explain method, Interpret results, Refer to literature, and Implication. Influential early studies also include Peacock´s (2002) investigation on moves in discussion sections across seven disciplines. Based on his empirical findings, Peacock (2002, p. 493) developed a model comprising eight moves:

1. Information (background about theory/research aims/methodology)

2. Finding (with or without a reference to a graph or table)

3. Expected or unexpected outcome (comment on whether the result is expected or not)

4. Reference to previous research

5. Explanation (reasons for expected or unexpected results)

6. Claim (contribution to research, sometimes with recommendations for action)

7. Limitation

8. Recommendation (suggestions for future research).

Later investigations have further refined the picture of the structure of discussion section. Drawing on Peacock´s (2002) model reviewed above, Al-Shujairi et al. (2019) compared the rhetorical moves and the linguistics realisations in the discussion sections in Medical Sciences and Applied Linguistics. Different from Peacock´s (2002) model, their study was not restricted to the analysis of moves because some moves may be realised by several steps, each of which has its communicative function that contributes to the communicative purpose of a move as a whole. Based on the empirical findings, Al-Shujairi et al. (2019, p. 36) proposed a new model of moves and steps constitutive of discussion sections. The model is particularly relevant for the present investigation because it analytically integrates the major constituents identified in earlier investigations on the topic. The model includes altogether nine moves and eight steps as follows:

Move 1. Background information

Step 1. Restating objectives

Step 2. Representing research design

Step 3. Defining a construct

Move 2. Findings

Move 3. Expected or unexpected outcome

Move 4. Reference to previous research

Move 5. Explanation

Step 1. Reasoning

Step 2. Exemplification

Step 3. Elaboration

Move 6. Claim

Move 7. Concluding information

Step 1. Limitation

Step 2. Recommendation

Move 8. Implication

Move 9. Summary of results

The model suggests that some of the functions of the discussion section, for example the claim, can be specified at the level of single moves. The move of the claim incorporates the writers´ arguments about the generality of some or all of the reported results, which is inferred or concluded from the line of argumentation in the previous part of the text. Three of the moves are more complex and they require the specification of constitutive steps. For example, the move explanation is realized by three steps, that is, reasoning, exemplification, and elaboration (Al-Shujairi et al., 2019, pp. 33-34). While explaining their results, the authors give reasons for their findings, offer examples from their data or elaborate further the meaning of a finding.

More recently, Al-Shujairi (2021) offered a useful review of studies examining the discussion sections of research articles since the 1980s. The review showed that differences in writing the discussion section varied across soft sciences (e.g., applied linguistics and sociology) and hard sciences (e.g., biology and chemistry). Although diverse models share some similarities in the purpose of the moves (e.g., explaining the results and referring to literature), several aspects from the moves would distinguish a framework from another. For example, while the move limitation was found in some models (e.g., Peacock, 2002), it was absent in others (e.g., Holmes, 1997; Swales, 1990). This difference could be caused by the variations of communicative purpose across disciplines. The above observations support the conclusion drawn from Liu and Buckingham (2018, p. 99). They noted that the attempts to identify diverse features of moves, for example, move frequency, opening and closing moves, and move sequences have brought mixed results. On the other hand, genre studies have not only identified the variation of the structural constituents of discussion sections. Hashemi and Moghaddam (2019, p. 243) demonstrated that these investigations have also identified well-established academic conventions and norms to which authors of discussion sections conform in order to create academic uniformity and discourse identity.

Research framework

The literary review suggests that discussion sections form a significant part of research articles because these sections crystallize the key findings of the study, explain their significance, reflect the study´s contribution to a research domain, and identify the limitations of the investigation. The literature review also indicated that genre-based studies have concentrated on the structural constituents (moves and steps) of discussion sections, particularly the order in which they appear in the texts. While the present study draws on the above findings while identifying the relevant constituents of discussion sections, it also introduces a new viewpoint by concentrating on how researchers fill the containers labelled as constituents with particular content pertinent to health information seeking.

The research framework of the present study was developed by making use of the models for discussion sections reviewed above. Due to their generic nature and applicability across diverse disciplines, the constituents identified by Peacock (2002) and Al-Shujairi et al. (2019) were particularly important. For the empirical analysis of the content of discussion sections in articles examining health information seeking, the following constituents identified by Peacock (2002) appeared to be relevant:

• Expected or unexpected outcome (comment on whether the result is expected or not)

• Explanation (reasons for expected or unexpected results)

• Claim (contribution to research, sometimes with recommendations for action)

• Limitation, and

• Recommendation (suggestions for future research).

In addition, from the model developed by Al-Shujairi et al. (2019), the following constituents were relevant for the empirical analysis:

• Background information

• Reference to previous research

• Implication, and

• Summary of results

Differently from the models reviewed above, the present study will not examine the order in which the constituents of the discussion section appear in the texts. As the study focuses on the constituents´ content, the order in which the content is presented in the discussion sections is of secondary importance. The preliminary analysis of the empirical material of the present investigation also revealed that the differentiation between moves and steps would not bring additional value to the analysis focusing on the constituents´ content. It is sufficient to operate at a more general level by approaching the linguistic and rhetorical units pertinent to the content of discussion sections in terms of constituents. The research framework was substantiated by including additional constituents identified inductively from the empirical data of the present study, that is, the sample of 100 articles examining health information seeking. These constituents deal with the ways in which researchers interpret their findings and compare them to the results of prior investigations. More specifically, the following constituents are relevant in this regard:

• Comparison with prior studies: describing similarities

• Comparison with prior studies: explaining similarities

• Comparison with prior studies: describing differences

• Comparison with prior studies: explaining differences

In addition, the following constituents depicting the ways in which researchers reflect their contributions as a whole were identified inductively from the research material:

• Identifying gaps in prior research

• Offering an empirical contribution

• Offering a contribution to the development of models and/or theories

• Offering a methodological contribution

The research framework of the present study was finalised by taking the constituents identified by Peacock (2002) and Al-Shujairi et al. (2019) as a point of departure. However, some of the constituents were renamed more informatively for the needs of the present investigation. For example, the constituent of “Expected or unexpected outcome (comment on whether the result is expected or not)’ (Peacock, 2002) was renamed as Interpreting individual findings, while the constituent of Background information (Al-Shujairi et al., 2019) is referred to as Offering background information about the study and its context. The initial framework was substantiated by adding the constituents inductively identified from the empirical material. Although the specific order of the constituents in discussion sections will not be examined, the constituents are divided into three groups reflecting the major parts of discussion sections. Dudley-Evans (1994) identified three macro-level parts of the discussion section, that is, introduction, evaluation, and conclusion. For the purposes of the present investigation, these parts were correspondingly renamed as Introduction, Interpretation of findings, and Specification of contributions and limitations. The research framework is specified in Table 1. The illustrative examples of the constituents are taken from the empirical material of the present investigation.

Part and constituent of discussion section

Illustrative example taken from the research material

Introduction Offering background information about the study and its context Summarising the key findings Interpretation of findings Interpretation of individual research results Comparison with prior studies: describing similarities Comparison with prior studies: explaining similarities Comparison with prior studies: describing differences Comparison with prior studies: explaining differences Specification of contributions and limitations Offering an empirical contribution Offering a contribution to the developments of models and/or theories Offering a methodological contribution Presenting practical implications Identifying gaps in prior research Assessing the limitations of the study Suggesting topics of further research

“This cross-sectional study examined the factors associated with internet health information-seeking among US adults with diabetes”. (Article 14) “The main findings of this study shows that among diabetic patients, the primary sources of health-related information were physicians, followed by television, friends and magazines”. (Article 21) “Likewise, teachers were mentioned a few times as credible health information sources because of their expertise and education”. (Article 26) “This is agreement with other studies (e.g., Sak and Schulz, 2018) reporting that the internet might be more useful for general-purpose health questions”. (Article 33) “The result of the present study is more in line with that of Johnson et al. (2015), possibly because the nature of the student sample, which was not year-specific”. (Article 71) “Conversely, Indonesian Gen Z reported social media as the main source of COVID-19 information (Roselina et al., 2021)”. (Article 76) “On the contrary, a study in Sweden suggested that caregivers´ OHIS behavior was a protective factor against delays before treatment. These inconsistent results may be due to differences in study sites and cancer types”. (Article 85) “By analysing Haodaifu Online cases, this study provides a comprehensive ad in-depth understanding of consumers´ health information consultation patterns with the participation of OHC, offering a new and unprecedented perspective for the research of consumer health information behavior”. (Article 89) “The research contributes a holistic model based on solid empirical findings to illustrate the whole process from emergence of needs (i.e., context) to the information contents and the resources needed to satisfy the need”. (Article 42) “Our coding scheme appears far wider than others available in the literature”. (Article 68) “Therefore, physicians should provide patients with informational and emotional social support through OHCs to improve patient compliance”. (Article 47) “Only a few studies analysed Web-based health information seekers for an acute symptom and the impact of such information on one’s health”. (Article 4) “Our findings may not be directly generalizable to other countries because this study was conducted only in Japan”. (Article 54) More studies are needed to address other types of health information that older adults might seek, such as information on environmental health and disease prevention”. (Article 100)

Table 1. The research framework

While discussing their findings, the researcher can make use diverse ways to reflect the contributions of an article. In the introductory part of the discussion section, they may offer background information about the goals of the study, as well as summarise the key findings. Thereafter, in the middle part of the section, the research findings are interpreted. To this end, the findings may be compared to the observations of prior studies by depicting similarities and differences. A more analytical way to interpret the findings is to explain why they are consistent or inconsistent with prior results. In the concluding part, the researcher moves from the interpretation of individual findings to the specification of their significance as a whole. This can be done by showing how the results offer an empirical, theoretical, methodological and/or practical contribution. In the final part, based on their findings, the researcher can also identify gaps in prior research, assess the limitations of the study, as well as suggest topics for future research.

Research questions

To examine how researchers in the domain of health information seeking crystallize their contributions and reflect their significance, the present study draws on the research framework presented in Table 1. More specifically, the present investigation seeks answers to the following questions.

• RQ1. In which ways do researchers offer background information of their investigation and summarize the findings in the discussion sections of articles examining health information seeking?

• RQ2: In the discussion sections, how do researchers interpret their findings?

RQ3. In the above sections, how do researchers specify their contributions to health information seeking studies as a whole?

Empirical data and analysis

The empirical research material was identified in April 2024 by searching Library and Information Science Abstracts (Proquest). This database was chosen because it extensively covers studies on information-seeking behaviour occurring in diverse contexts. Using the search term health information seeking, the database searches were directed to the abstracts of the articles on the above topic. For clarity and to avoid terminological ambiguity, the search term health information searching was not used. This is because researchers sometimes use it interchangeably with the term health information seeking, without specifying how health information searching differs from health information seeking (Bachl et al., 2024). In the searches, three criteria were employed in order to identify pertinent material. First, the topic´s relevance was used as criterion. Second, the searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles, thus leaving out material of other types. Third, only articles published in English were included in order to ensure that the terminology used in the articles is comparable. By the above criteria, a sample of the 100 first articles of the search list was downloaded for a closer review. The sample appeared to be sufficient for the needs of a qualitative study because the material became saturated. It became evident that the inclusion of additional articles would not have essentially changed the qualitative picture of the discussion sections of articles examining the issues of health information seeking.

The 100 articles were published in 27 diverse journals within the period of 2009-2024. Examples of the titles of the articles include “Laypeople's source selection in online health information‐seeking process” and “The association between health information seeking on the Internet and physician visits”. The list of articles is presented in Appendix 1. The most frequent publication forums of the articles were Journal of Medical Internet Research (30 articles), Journal of Documentation (13 articles), Aslib Journal of Information Management (8 articles), Library & Information Science Research (6 articles) and Online Information Review (5 articles). The rest of the articles were scattered amongst a number of journals, for example, Information Research, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, and Health Communication. Of the 100 articles, 71 were based on quantitative research (e.g., questionnaire surveys), while 12 articles were qualitative investigations based on the analysis of interview data. Moreover, 12 articles were systematic literature reviews, and 5 articles drew on the mixed methods approach. The length of the discussion sections varied between 569 and 3626 words. On average, a discussion section contained 1468 words. There was some variation in the ways in which the authors employed guiding subtitles in the discussion sections in order to orient the readers. For example, in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, most discussion sections were initiated with a text paragraph placed under the subtitle of Principal findings. In addition, the authors employed various subtitles such as Comparison with prior work, and Strengths and limitations. It is probable that subtitles such as these were used simply because the instructions for authors published by Journal of Medical Internet Research explicitly require that ‘the following format ("IMRD Format") must be used for the paper’ and that Discussion is structured using ‘e.g., the subheadings "Principal Results", "Limitations", "Comparison with Prior Work", "Conclusions’ (https://www.jmir.org/author-information/instructions-for-authors). In other journals, for example, the Journal of Documentation, and Library & Information Science Research, there were no guidelines for the authors about how to structure the discussion section. Therefore, it is understandable that in these journals, the use of subtitles varied from an article to another, while many discussion sections lacked subtitles entirely.

Following the advice of Basturkmen (2012, p. 136), the downloaded articles were first read in their entirety. This was done to avoid a partial understanding of the discussion sections. Thereafter, the discussion sections were read twice to obtain a preliminary picture of their content. The study was continued by conducting a preliminary coding of the material by making use of the constituents identified by Peacock (2002) and Al-Shujairi et al. (2019). The material was coded by the present researcher; there were no other coders. As noted above, the coding scheme was substantiated by adding constituents inductively identified from the research material, for example, ‘Comparison with prior studies: explaining similarities’, and ‘Offering an empirical contribution’. In the second phase of the coding, all relevant text portions (sentences and text paragraphs) were equipped by codes indicative of the constituents specified in Table 1 so that an individual code was used one or more times within a discussion section. For example, every single research finding interpreted by the author of an article was coded separately, as well as every theoretical implication specified by the researcher. However, sentences in which the authors returned to individual research results already depicted in the findings section - without interpreting them in any way - were excluded from because these text portions did not offer new content to the discussion section. The coding was refined and checked several times by the present author until it was concluded that the codes appropriately cover the whole research material and that there are no anomalies. More specifically, to strengthen the reliability of the coding, the initial coding was refined by repeated reading of the data. During this process, the methodological recommendation of Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 65) was followed: the careful checking of the codes is a useful method for the lone researcher if the code‐recode consistencies reach at least 90%. Following this advice, the coding was refined until it was found that the codes appropriately describe the data and that there are no anomalies.

The coded material was analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively by the present author. First, to obtain an indicative quantitative picture of the content of discussion sections, the distribution of the codes assigned to the constituents was calculated by means of descriptive statistics. The analysis was refined by means of qualitative content analysis (Zhang and Wildemuth, 2016). More specifically, attention was directed to the variation in the constituents´ content. The analysis of the variation was initiated by the identification of similarities and differences in the ways in which the authors depicted such content per constituent, for example, while summarizing the key findings and reflecting the empirical contribution. In the next phase of the analysis, the focus was placed on the comparison of such similarities and differences per constituent. This enabled the scrutiny of the various ways in which the authors, for example, explained why their findings are consistent with earlier studies on the topic or how the research results contribute to the development of models for health information seeking.

Findings

Quantitative overview

Table 2 specifies how the authors of the 100 articles devoted attention to the diverse constituents of the discussion section.

Constituent	%
Interpreting individual research results	27.9
Describing similarities of findings	16.4
Suggesting topics for future research	9.9
Assessing the limitations of the study	9.5
Presenting practical implications	8.0
Offering background information	5.8
Offering an empirical contribution	4.9
Summarizing the key findings	4.9
Identifying gaps in prior research	3.6
Describing differences of findings	2.9
Offering a theoretical contribution	2.5
Explaining differences of findings	2.4
Offering a methodological contribution	0.7
Explaining similarities of findings	0.6
In total	100.0

Table 2. Percentage distribution of the codes assigned to the constituents of the discussion sections (n=1388).

Table 2 indicates that the most frequent ways to discuss the contributions were the interpreting of the individual research results, followed by the description of similarities with prior findings. In addition, the authors often identified topics of further research, pondered practical implications of their findings and reflected the limitations of their studies. To compare, less attention was devoted to the theoretical implications, and the explanation of the similarities of findings. Regarding the diverse parts of the discussion section, the constituents of the introductory part offering background information about the study and summarizing the findings covered 10.7% of the codes assigned to the material. The middle part of the discussion section dealing with the interpretation of the findings occupied a major role, comprising altogether 50.2% of the codes. The concluding part focusing on the reflection of the contributions as a whole, as far as the identification of limitations of the study and topics of further research covered 39.1% of the codes. In the final part, the main attention was devoted to the topics of future research, the assessment of the limitations of the study and the depiction of the practical implications, thus leaving less room to the reflection of the empirical, theoretical, methodological contributions of the study.

Qualitative features of discussion sections

Introduction.

Table 2 indicated that from the quantitative point of view, the introductory part occupied a relatively modest role in the discussion sections. Typically, they were initiated by a short repetition of the main goal of the investigation. To put the study in a broader context, the authors also offered background information about their research approach. In this regard, the introductory part mirrored the introductory chapter of the article, as the authors returned to the description of the points of departure of their investigations.

The primary purpose of the present study is to develop an understanding of the health and lifestyle information behaviour of Icelanders, with special emphasis on social media and its role in information behaviour today. (Article 61)

This cross-sectional study examined the factors associated with internet health information-seeking behavior among US adults with diabetes. (Article 14)

Another constituent of the introductory part is the summary of the key findings of the study. This constituent was easy to identify in cases in which the discussion sections were equipped with subtitles such as Principal findings or Summary of results. The content of the summaries varied widely, depending on the research topic. Sometimes, to attract the reader´s attention to the most important results, attributes such as “main” and “major” were used.

The main finding of this study shows that among diabetic patients, the primary sources of health-related information were physicians, followed by television, friends, and magazines. (Article 21)

Interpretation of findings.

Table 2 suggests that researchers tend to direct their main attention to the middle part of the discussion section. No less than 50.2% of the codes assigned to the constituents deal with the interpretation of individual research results. To this end, one of the popular strategies used by the authors was to emphasize the unique nature of a finding. It was claimed that for the first time in health information seeking studies, a phenomenon or a connection between phenomena is revealed.

This study is the first to show that internet users with chronic lung diseases are more likely to watch a health-related video on YouTube. (Article 53)

Another way to emphasize the novelty value of a finding was to refer to its unexpected nature. Usually, the surprise value was explained by depicting how a unique context of health information seeking influenced one´s source preferences.

Surprisingly, friends and family (personal network) was not a favorite source for COVID-19 related information. This may be because the COVID-19 situation is new for us, and no one had enough information in a household. (Article 76)

Even though a finding would be unsurprising, it may offer a novel viewpoint to health information seeking because the research result makes understandable how contextual factors hinder or facilitate the identification of information sources.

The results show how education is an important factor with regards to the use of the Internet in searching for health-related information. This was expected because educated individuals and those who can afford digital devices or computers have greater access to the Internet. (Article 99)

The interpretation of the contributory value of a finding can also made by explaining why health information seeking occurs in a certain way. To achieve this, the authors identified reasons for such behaviour. This approach was characterised by the use of the words because of, indicative of the factors behind the attempts to seek health information.

They found it easier to seek COVID-19 information because of two reasons. First, distinguishing reliable from unreliable information was not difficult, as authoritative government healthcare institutions consistently provided accurate information that needed to be followed up. Second, the availability of COVID-19 information in multiple languages eliminated any language-related challenges. (Article 17)

The comparison of findings with prior studies appeared to be a popular strategy in the interpretation of individual research results. Most commonly, this was made by depicting the similarities between one´s finding and the observations of studies conducted by others. The comparison of similarities offers a way to confirm the relevance of prior observations about health information seeking. In most cases, comparison by similarity was simply made by describing one´s finding and then suggesting that it aligns with the observations of an earlier investigation.

The results are similar to the findings from some prior studies, which found that there were still many people who prefer to use traditional media (e.g., books, newspapers) or healthcare professionals as their primary sources for seeking health information (Allen et al., [2]; Rains, [43]). (Article 96)

The findings can also be interpreted by explaining the similarity of the results with the observations of prior studies. This approach was used rarely. It is easier to describe similar findings than trying to find out why they are similar. On the other hand, the explanation of the similarities is easier if prior studies have identified almost identical connections or parallels between the factors of health information seeking.

This finding is consistent with previous studies, which confirmed that mothers are very active health information seekers (Bernhardt & Felter, 2004; Skranes et al., 2014). This may be explained by the mothers' role as health managers for their family members (Lee, 2016; Moon et al., 2019; Yoo, 2004). (Article 37)

Again, the explanation of the similarities may not lead to the identification of a full correspondence because prior investigations can be based on different research approaches. However, the similarities may be sufficiently comparable so that the explanation is meaningful.

The result of the present study is more in line with that of Johnson et al. (2015), possibly because of the nature of the student sample, which was not year-specific. (Article 70)

While interpreting their findings, the authors quite seldom described the differences between research results. This may be due to the motivation to seek confirmatory support for one´s findings by depicting consistent results, rather than refer to contrary evidence that may challenge the conclusions drawn by the author. Nevertheless, the interpretation of a finding can dig deeper if contrasting results are explained in some way. This strategy is cognitively demanding, and it was used quite seldom. No conclusive explanations were developed; rather, the authors offered general level assumptions of possible reasons, using cautious expressions such as ‘this may be because’, and ‘it is possible that’. Commonly, differing or contrasting findings were made understandable by referring to diverse research approaches and different research populations.

However, only 7.8% of our survey respondents reported online health information seeking behaviors, which is significantly lower than the national data [35]. There are several potential reasons for this difference. First, Washington Height and Inwood are designated as medically underserved areas. (Article 39)

Specification of contributions and limitations.

For the reflection of the contributions and implications of the research findings as a whole, the concluding part of the discussion section is particularly important. Often, this part is the most demanding part for the writers because they have to enhance the abstraction level in order to reflect the significance of their findings more generally. As most of the articles examined in the present study reported empirical findings, the reflection of their contributory value was common in the discussion sections. The simplest way to highlight contributions of this type is to claim that the investigation pioneers in the analysis of a particular issue of health information seeking.

This is the first study exploring primary care patients’ online health information-seeking behavior in Hong Kong. It provides a comprehensive and up-to-date quantitative picture of online health information seeking for primary care doctors to understand their patients’ health information needs, which they might not disclose to doctors. (Article 86)

The authors also detailed how their empirical contributions added to the literature of health information seeking. To highlight the significance of the empirical contributions to this domain, the authors used expressions indicative of the unique nature of the findings.

By analyzing Haodaifu Online cases, this study provides a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of consumers' health information consultation patterns with the participation of online health communities, offering a new and unprecedented perspective for the research of consumer health information behavior. (Article 88)

The nature of the empirical contributions can also be detailed by specifying factors that were elaborated in the investigation. To this end, references to statistical analysis offered additional evidence about the significance of empirical results. Another strategy to highlight the importance of the contribution was to claim that the empirical results can be generalized to concern information seeking among people suffering from health problems.

The diversity of our participants’ backgrounds, the number and types of chronic health conditions of our participants, and the match between our prominent manifest level themes with other studies suggest that our findings could be transferable to a wider population of consumers with chronic health conditions who use the Internet to find health information. (Article 40)

The analysis of the discussion sections revealed that the authors seldom reflected their theoretical contributions. This may be due to that the elaboration of the existing models for health information seeking, merely drawing on one´s empirical findings, is a demanding task. Nevertheless, there were a few attempts to depict how the findings could be used to complement or refine the existing models by directing attention to individual factors of health information seeking. Characterizations of this kind offered a more convincing picture of a particular theoretical contribution in light of prior attempts to model a phenomenon. The theoretical contributions were also depicted by making references to individual constituents of models for health information seeking. In addition to models, the theoretical contributions can deal with related constructs such as predictors, taxonomies and categorizations of phenomena related to health information seeking.

Overall, the results of the multigroup comparison suggest that the relative importance of predictors of gender-related web-based HISB (=health information seeking behaviour) differs depending on individuals’ gender. Therefore, considering gender more thoroughly is a valuable extension for theory-based modelling of web-based HISB. (Article 44)

To compare, methodological contributions were more seldom presented. Contributions of this type ranged from the development of the coding systems to the novel ways of data gathering and the analysis of empirical data. The added value of the methodological contribution to health information seeking studies was also emphasized by drawing attention to the benefits of the new methodological approach and its potential in future studies on the topic.

This study has taken a novel methodological approach to analyze the actual use data to examine cancer patients' online information searching behaviors. By tracking the time and the URL of all the CHESS information service web pages visited, this study was able to investigate patients' online information seeking patterns in greater detail. (Article 30)

Table 2 indicated that the authors tended to look at the practical implications of their findings. Again, their content varied widely, depending on the research topic. However, four major themes dominated the discussion about practical implications: the design and development of information services, the provision of health information, the provision of informational, emotional and social support for the information seekers, and the advancement of health information literacy. Some of the practical suggestions were presented at a general level, without detailing how they could be realised while designing and developing information services, for example. However, most authors specified how their research findings could be applied in the design and development of information services or the provision of health information.

Our findings provide evidence of the value of creating support services that incorporate peer mentors to teach people newly diagnosed with dementia how to search for information to meet their physiological, social, and emotional information needs. (Article 13)

One of the constituents of the concluding part is the assessment of the limitations of the study. Many of them concerned the ways in which the empirical data were gathered. The limitations dealing with the sample were also reflected in the evaluations concerning the generalisation of the findings.

Although the study sample was representative of the whole clinic population, it is skewed toward younger and more educated patients. Thus, the study’s external validity is reduced. (Article 86)

The identification of the limitations did not merely disclose potential weaknesses of a study. It is possible to look forward and implicate how the limitation can be overcome in future investigations. For example, the sample may be widened to include additional groups of people. Closely, related, one of the ways to reflect the contributions of the study is to identify gaps in prior research and to suggests ways in which they could be overcome in future investigations. To this end, the authors emphasized the pioneering role of their studies.

Most of the previous studies have been conducted in the western context while this study is amongst a few attempts to explain the young adults’ behavior regarding online health information seeking and sharing in a developing country context. (Article 48)

The analysis revealed that the identification of the needs and topics of future studies represents a logical final constituent of the discussion sections. As noted above, references to future studies can also made while reflecting how the gaps in prior research could be filled or how the limitations of a study could be overcome. Given the abundance of research topics of the 100 articles analysed in the present study, the content of the suggested future studies varied considerably. Again, there were differences in the specificity of the suggestions. Some of them just named a research topic, without justifying why research should be directed to a particular issue. However, based on their own findings, most authors specified the reasons for the need of further investigations. For example, suggested topics for future research can be justified by referring to the need to refine models for health information seeking. Similarly, future research may be needed to test models proposed by the authors or to compare the empirical findings. Due to such specifications, the suggestions for further research could be justified more strongly.

One of the study findings that Finnish people used social media less frequently for seeking COVID-19 related information opens the direction to future research. It is imperative to conduct explanatory research to understand the reasons for the low use of social media for health information seeking by Finnish people. (Article 76)

Discussion

Drawing on the ideas of genre analysis, the present study elaborated the picture of the ways in which researchers in a particular domain reflect their contributions in the discussion sections of scholarly articles. While genre-based studies have offered a detailed view on the structure and constituents of discussion section, the present investigation demonstrated how researchers fill the structural constituents with content in the domain of health information seeking. More specifically, the present study adds knowledge about how researchers in the above domain realise the norms of scholarly writing by generating content for the “containers” represented by diverse constituents in discussion sections. The main findings of are summarized in Table 3.

Part and constituent of discussion section

Main features of the constituent´s content

Part I: Introduction (RQ1) Offering background information about the study and its context Summarizing the key findings Part II: Interpretation of findings (RQ2) Interpreting individual research results Comparison with prior studies - describing similarities - explaining similarities - describing differences - explaining differences Part III: Specification of contributions and limitations (RQ3) Offering an empirical contribution Offering a contribution to the development of models and/or theories Offering a methodological contribution Presenting practical implications Identifying gaps in prior research Identifying and assessing the limitations of the study Suggesting topics for further research

Concise repetition of the points of departure of the study Short description of the most important research result(s) Explaining the novelty value of a research result Explaining the value of an expected (unsurprising) finding Considering the importance of a finding for the contextual understanding of health information seeking Showing how a finding is consistent with an observation of a prior investigation on the topic Seeking confirmatory support to one´s finding Drawing on similar contexts of information seeking or similar groups of people seeking health information Explaining partial similarity between findings by referring to different research populations Depicting how one´s research result differs from an observation of a prior study Drawing on different contexts of information seeking or referring to different research populations Demonstrating how the study pioneers in the domain of health information seeking Explaining how the empirical findings add knowledge about health information seeking Explaining the extent to which the empirical findings are statistically representative or generalizable Specifying how the findings refine models for health information seeking by adding new components or identifying predictors Explaining the value of new taxonomies and categorizations of health information seeking Demonstrating the value of the novel ways to gather, code and analyse the empirical data Describing how the research findings can be used to design and develop information services, provide health information more effectively, support information seekers and advance health information literacy Identifying research topics ignored in earlier studies Demonstrating how one´s research findings can fill the gap Depicting the limitations regarding data gathering and the generalizability of the findings Proposing topics for future investigations by drawing on gaps in research or based on one´s own findings

Table 3. Summary of the main findings

The present sought answers to three research questions. First, it was asked how do researchers offer background information and summarize their findings in the discussion sections? In this regard, as Table 3 suggests, the research results are unsurprising. Researchers write the introductory part to remind readers about the research goal of the study and to direct their attention to the key findings of the investigation. Following the academic convention, the introductory part is usually commonly kept concise because it represents a necessary first step on the way to the core content of the discussion.

The second research question focused on the ways in which researchers interpret the individual key findings. This occurs in the middle part of the discussion section. First, while interpreting individual research results, the writers emphasized their novelty or surprise value; a phenomenon or relation is identified for the first time in health information seeking studies. Second, an individual finding was interpreted by drawing on descriptive comparison, that is, depicting similarities and differences between one´s finding and prior research results. The popularity of similarity description suggests that researchers prefer a conservative approach to the interpretation of their findings. The emphasis is placed on their confirmation in light of prior observations, rather than exposing one´s finding to opposing or contradictory evidence offered by earlier investigations. Third, an individual finding was interpreted using explanatory comparison. To this end, the researcher explicated why his or her finding is consistent or inconsistent with prior observations. Explanatory comparison was employed quite seldom, probably because this approach is cognitively more demanding than descriptive comparison.

Finally, the third research question dealt with the concluding part of the discussion section, that is, the ways in which researchers specify their contributions to health information seeking studies as a whole. In this regard, four major strategies were identified. First, the writers evaluated how their findings refined or complemented the empirical picture of health information seeking by identifying new phenomena or statistically significant relationships between variables. Second, researchers specified how their findings resulted in the elaboration of models for health information seeking or offered a new methodological viewpoint to health information seeking studies. The specification of the contributions to model development and methodology were rare, thus suggesting that they are cognitively demanding tasks, requiring that the researcher is able to rise above his or her individual research results. Third, the writers reflected the practical implications of their findings. This is not necessarily easier than the pondering of the theoretical implications because practical suggestions are more convincing if the writer is able to demonstrate how his or her findings can be applied to the design of a particular information service, for example. Fourth, the contributions were specified by identifying the limitations of the study and explaining how they could be overcome in future investigations. Closely related, the identification of gaps in prior studies served the same end because the lack of investigations in a domain is indicative of a potentially relevant research topic.

Given that the present study pioneers in the analysis of discussion sections dealing with health information seeking, there is a paucity of prior investigations offering opportunities for comparative notions. The findings support Hyland´s (2008, p. 3) assumption about researchers´ ways to draw on the 'persuasive practices of their discipline, encoding ideas, employing warrants, and framing arguments in ways that their potential audience will find most convincing'. The discussion sections examined in the present study indicate that the persuasive practices include, for example, the highlighting of the novelty value of the findings, thus convincing the readers about the relevance of research approach. The findings also lend support to the conclusion drawn by Arsyad et al. (2020, p. 294) and Avidan, Ioannidis and Mashour (2019, p. 414) They claimed that writers tend to refer to the findings of prior studies in order to demonstrate that their own investigation is an integral part of a relevant research tradition and that their findings constructively add knowledge to it. This preference was clearly evident, as the authors favoured the seeking of confirmatory support rather than contrary evidence while comparing their findings with earlier investigations. While reflecting the contributory role of discussion sections, Kearney (2017, p. 290) likened an informative discussion section to a “road map” which is capable of demonstrating for the readers 'where they are after this study, in comparison to where they were before'. The discussion sections examined in the present study seldom achieved this goal. This is mainly due to the paucity of reflection focusing on the theoretical contributions of a study. Investigations based on the systematic review of health information seeking studies fared better in this regard because they disclosed gaps in research and suggested topics of future research.

The findings of the present study, as well as the comparative notions have theoretical implications for the analysis of the discussion sections. The models developed in the domain of genre analysis offer a firm basis for the identification of the constituents of discussion sections, as well as the scrutiny of the order in which the constituents appear in the texts. As the genre analytic approaches are focused on the structure of the scholarly articles, there is a need to refine the analysis of the content of the constituents. To this end, the Argumentative Zoning (AZ) theory developed by Teufel (1999) offers useful conceptual and methodological tools. AZ is an analysis of the argumentative and rhetorical structure of a scientific paper (Teufel, Siddhartan and Batchelor, 2009, p. 1493. One of the strengths of AZ is that it enables a sentence-by-sentence classification with mutually exclusive categories from the annotation scheme incorporating categories such as Aim, Background, Basis, Contrast, Own, and Textual. For example, the category of Aim points out the paper’s main knowledge claim, a rhetorical move which may be repeated in the introductory section and Discussion, while the category Textual explains the physical location of information, e.g., by giving a section overview or presenting a summary of a subsection.

The findings also have practical implications for the writers of discussions sections. They could be enhanced by directing more attention to the reflection of contrasting evidence in order to test the relevance of interpretations. Moreover, there is a need to employ more deeply analytical strategies based on the explanatory comparison. This approach is cognitively more demanding than description and comparison; however, it can enable digging deeper, possibly leading to the identification of new connections between one´s findings and the observations of prior research on the topic. There is also a need to demonstrate in more detail how one´s findings would contribute to the conceptual and theoretical development in a domain. This would serve the ends of cumulating knowledge in a field because the findings would be put into a broader context and thereby be used more effectively in future investigations on the topic.

Basturkmen (2012, p. 143) has made useful suggestions for future studies on discussion sections. Interviews with the writers could offer useful information about the ways in which researchers compose the discussion sections. Interviews would be most effective if they are directed to a recently written discussion section because the authors could be able to recall better the writing process. Examples of relevant interview questions include, why was the discussion section composed in a certain way, how was the content of the text drafted and finalized, and how did the author draw on diverse strategies to reflect his or her contributions? On the other hand, the writers may find such interviews demanding because much of the knowledge used by the researcher is likely be tacit, thus subject to intuitive thinking and insights that arose during the writing process. Therefore, it is possible that the authors cannot recall and articulate exactly how they filled the various constituents of the discussion with particular content. Nevertheless, the interview data would offer valuable material for the elaboration of the picture of the scholarly writing process and academic conventions behind it.

Conclusion

Discussion sections occupy a significant role when researchers reflect their empirical, theoretical, methodological and practical contributions. The present investigation pioneered by demonstrating how researchers in the domain of health information seeking interpret their findings. The results highlight that in the above domain, the authors tend to prefer a conservative approach by seeking confirmatory support from prior studies. As the present investigation focused on a sample of 100 discussion sections, the results do not offer a generalizable picture of the content of such sections in the domain of health information seeking. Thus there is a need to expand the analysis by examining how researchers generate and justify their contributions in diverse subdomains of information behaviour research. Another topic of future research is a more detailed analysis of the content of individual constituents, for example, the articulation of theoretical and practical implications. Examples of the topics of future studies also include the comparison of discussion and conclusion sections. The comparative approach is meaningful because conclusion sections may have unique elements. Lamanauskas (2021, pp. 7-8) referred to them by suggesting that ideally, conclusion sections are able to express the 'purification of the gist of the research carried out'. Similar to an effective final paragraph of a discussion section, Conclusion can offer a “take-home message”, that is, a crystallised description of the main contribution of an investigation.

Acknowledgements

I'm grateful for the constructive critiques and suggestions provided by the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript.

About the author

Reijo Savolainen is Professor Emeritus at the Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Tampere University, Finland. His main research interests are in the theoretical and empirical issues of everyday information practices and information behaviour. He can be contacted at Reijo.Savolainen@tuni.fi

References

Al-Shujairi, Y.B.J (2021). Review of the discussion section of research articles: rhetorical structure and move. LSP International Journal, 8(2), 9-25. https://doi.org/10.11113/lspi.v8.17099

Al-Shujairi, Y.B.J., Tan, H., Abdullah, A.N, Nimehchisalem, V., & Imm, L.G. (2019). Moving in the right direction in the discussion section of research articles. Journal of Language and Communication, 6(2), 23-38. (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/al-shujairi-et-al.-2019)

Angelini, D.J. (2023). Delving into the critical constituents of the discussion section. Nurse Author & Editor, 33(3-4), 26-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/nae2.12056

Annesley, T.M. (2010). The discussion section: your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56(11), 1671-1674. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2010.155358

Arsyad, S, Purwo, B.K., & Adnan, Z. (2020). The argument style in research article discussions to support research findings in Language Studies. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 290-307. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16626

Avidan, M.S., Ioannidis, J.P.A, & Mashour G.A. (2019). Independent discussion sections for improving inferential reproducibility in published research. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 122(4), 413-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2018.12.010

Bachl, M., Link, E., Mangold, F., Stier, S. (2024). Search engine use for health-related purposes: behavioral data on online health information-seeking in Germany. Health Communication, 39(8), 1651-1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2309810

Basturkmen, H. (2012). A genre-based investigation of discussion sections of research articles in Dentistry and disciplinary variation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 134-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.10.004

Bavdekar, S.B. (2015). Writing the discussion section: describing the significance of the study findings. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India, 63, 40-42. (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/bavdekar-2015)

Brett, P. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(94)90024-8

Capkin, C. (2024). Trends in genre analysis articles on scientific abstract structures: a quantitative content analysis. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 56(1), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221132274

Conn, V.S. (2017). How to craft a strong discussion section. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(5), 607-608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916650196

Dobakhti, L. (2016). A genre analysis of discussion sections of qualitative research articles in applied linguistics. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(7), 1383-1389. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0607.08

Dudley-Evans, T. (1994). Genre analysis: an approach to text analysis for ESP. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 219-228). Routledge.

Ghasemi, A., Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Hosseinpanah, F., Shiva, N., & Zadeh-Vakili, A. (2019). The principles of biomedical scientific writing: discussion. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 17(3) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.95415

Given, L.M., Case, D.O., & Willson, R. (2023) Looking for information: examining research on how people engage with information. 5th ed. Emerald.

Goulston, A. (2023). How to write the discussion section of a research paper. AJE Scholar Author Resource Center. https://www.aje.com/arc/how-to-write-the-discussion-section/ (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/Goulston)

Gray, J.A. (2019). Discussion and conclusion. AME Medical Journal, 4 (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.21037/amj.2019.04.05

Hashemi, M.R., & Moghaddam, I.G. (2019). A mixed methods genre analysis of the discussion section of MMR articles in applied linguistics. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 242-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816674626

Holmes, R. (1997). Genre analysis, and the social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 16(4), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00038-5

Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge; representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.8.2.49151

Kearney, M.H. (2017). The discussion section tells us where we are. Research in Nursing Health, 40(4), 289-291. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.2180

Lamanauskas, V (2021) Writing a scientific article: focused discussion and rational conclusions. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 79(1), 4-11. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/21.79.04

Lambert, S.D., & Loiselle, C.G. (2007). Health information-seeking behavior. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8), 1006-1019. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230730519

Lim, J.M.H (2010). Commenting on research results in applied linguistics and education: a comparative genre-based investigation. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(4), 280-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.10.001

Liu, Y., & Buckingham, L. (2018). The schematic structure of discussion sections in applied linguistics and the distribution of metadiscourse markers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 34, 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.04.002

Masic, I. (2018). How to write an efficient discussion? Medical Archives, 72(3), 306-307. https://doi.org/0.5455/medarh.2018.72.306-307

Mirzaei. A., Aslani, P., Luca, E.J., & Schneider, C.R. (2021). Predictors of health information–seeking behavior: systematic literature review and network analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(7) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/21680

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage.

Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00050-7

Qin, C., & Zhang, C. (2023). Which structure of academic articles do referees pay more attention to? Perspective of peer review and full-text of academic articles. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 75(5), 884-916. https://doi-org.libproxy.tuni.fi/10.1108/AJIM-05-2022-0244

Skelton, J.R., & Edwards, S.J.L. (2000). The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. British Medical Journal, 320, 1269-1270. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7244.1269

Smith, D.E.A. (1984). Medical discourse: aspects of author's comment. The ESP Journal, 3(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(84)90004-0

Swales, J. (1981). Aspects of article introductions. University of Aston Language Studies Unit.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press.

Teufel, S. (1999). Argumentative zoning information extraction from scientific text. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sht25/thesis/t1.pdf (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/teufel-1999)

Teufel, S., Siddharthan, A., & Batchelor, C. (2009). Towards domain-independent argumentative zoning: evidence from Chemistry and Computational Linguistics. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1493-1502. https://aclanthology.org/D09-1155 (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/teufel-siddhartan-batchelor)

Yang, R. & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B.M. (2016). Qualitative analysis of content. In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in Information and Library Science (pp. 318-329). 2nd ed. Libraries Unlimited.

Copyright

Authors contributing to Information Research agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license, which gives third parties the right to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. It also gives third parties the right to remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, except commercial, on the condition that clear acknowledgment is given to the author(s) of the work, that a link to the license is provided and that it is made clear if changes have been made to the work. This must be done in a reasonable manner, and must not imply that the licensor endorses the use of the work by third parties. The author(s) retain copyright to the work. You can also read more at: https://publicera.kb.se/ir/openaccess

Appendix I. Research material

1. Ahadzadeh, A.S., Pahlevan Sharif, S., & Ong, F.S. (2018). Online health information seeking among women: the moderating role of health consciousness. Online Information Review, 42(1), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0066

2. Ahmadinia, H., Eriksson-Backa, K. & Nikou, S. (2022). Health information seeking behaviour during exceptional times: a case study of Persian-speaking minorities in Finland. Library & Information Science Research, 44(2) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2022.101156

3. Ahmadinia, H., Eriksson-Backa, K., & Nikou, S. (2022). Health-seeking behaviours of immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees in Europe: A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles. Journal of Documentation, 78(7), 18-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2020-0168

4. Aoun, L., Lakkis, N., & Antoun, J. (2020). Prevalence and outcomes of web-based health information seeking for acute symptoms: cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(1) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/15148

5. Baumann, E., Czerwinski, F., & Reifegerste, D. (2017). Gender-specific determinants and patterns of online health information seeking: results from a representative German health survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(4) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6668

6. Bevens, W., Davenport, R., Neate, S., Yu, M., Jelinek, P., Jelinek, G.A., & Reece, J. (2024). Web-based health information seeking by people living with multiple sclerosis: qualitative investigation of the multiple sclerosis online course. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26(1) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/53372

7. Burtis, A.T., & Howell, S.M. (2023). Cyberchondria and information seeking behavior: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet, 27(4), 339-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15398285.2023.2266541

8. Chen, T. (2021). A systematic integrative review of cognitive biases in consumer health information seeking: emerging perspective of behavioural information research. Journal of Documentation, 77(3), 798-823. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-01-2020-0004

9. Chi, Y., He, D., & Jeng, W. (2020). Laypeople's source selection in online health information‐seeking process. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(12),1484-1499. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24343

10. Chung, K., Hee, Y.C., Young, R.K., Jhung, K., Koo, H.S., & Jin, Y.P. (2020). Medical help-seeking strategies for perinatal women with obstetric and mental health problems and changes in medical decision making based on online health information: path analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/14095

11. Cormulada, W.S., Step, M., Flecther, J.B., Tanner, A.E, Dowshen, N., Arayasirikul, S., Keglowitz Baker, K., Zuniga, Swendeman, J.D., Medich, M., Kao, U.H., Northrup, A., Nieto, O., & Brooks, R.A. (2020). Predictors of Internet health information–seeking behaviors among young adults living with HIV across the United States: longitudinal observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(11) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/18309

12. Deng, Z., Liu, S., & Hinz, O. (2015). The health information seeking and usage behavior intention of Chinese consumers through mobile phones. Information Technology & People, 28(2), 405-423. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-03-2014-0053

13. Dixon, E., Anderson, J., Blackwelder, D.C., Radnofsky, M.L., & Lazar, A. (2022). The human need for equilibrium: qualitative study on the ingenuity, technical competency, and changing strategies of people with dementia seeking health information. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(8) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/35072

14. Eke, R., Khadiza, T.J., Yang, X.T., & Parton, J.M. (2022). Disparity and factors associated with internet health information seeking among US adults living with diabetes mellitus: cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(5) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/32723

15. Eriksson-Backa, K., Enwald, H., Hirvonen, N., & Huvila, I. (2018). Health information seeking, beliefs about abilities, and health behaviour among Finnish seniors. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 50(3), 284-295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000618769971

16. Gonzalez, M., Sanders-Jackson, A., & Emory, J. (2016). Online health information-seeking behavior and confidence in filling out online forms among Latinos: a cross-sectional analysis of the California health interview survey, 2011-2012. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(7) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5065

17. Greyson, D. (2017). Health information practices of young parents. Journal of Documentation, 73(5), 778-802. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2016-0089

18. Greyson, D., & Johnson, J.L. (2016). The role of information in health behavior: a scoping study and discussion of major public health models. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(12), 2831- 2841. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23392

19. Hargreaves, S., Sbaffi, L., & Ford, N. (2023). Information seeking amongst informal caregivers of people with dementia: a qualitative study. Journal of Documentation, 79(2), 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2022-0066

20. Huang, K., Hao, X., Guo, M., Deng, J., & Li, L. (2021). A study of Chinese college students' COVID-19-related information needs and seeking behavior. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 73(5), 679-698. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-10-2020-0307

21. Jamal, A., Khan, S.A., AlHumud, A., Al-Duhyyim, A., & Alrashed, M. (2015). Association of online health information-seeking behavior and self-care activities among type 2 diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(8) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4312

22. Jang, S.H., & Yi, Y.J. (2023). Comparing COVID-19 and general health information-seeking behaviors among Chinese international students in South Korea. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (published online 5 September 2023). https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231196346

23. Jia, R.M., Du, J.T., & Zhao, Y.C. (2022). Characteristics of the health information seeking behavior of LGBTQ+ individuals: a systematic review on information types, information sources and influencing factors. Journal of Documentation, 78(2), 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-03-2021-0069

24. Jiao, W., Chang, A., Ho, M., Lu, Q., Liu, M.T., & Schulz, P. J. (2023). Predicting and empowering health for generation Z by comparing health information seeking and digital health literacy: cross-sectional questionnaire study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(1) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/47595

25. Jin, X. (2023). Political ideology and differences in seeking COVID-19 information on the internet: examining the comprehensive model of information seeking. Online Information Review, 47(7), 1280-1301. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2022-0436

26. Känsäkoski, H.M., Hirvonen, N., Palmgren-Neuvonen, L., Nygård, T., & Huotari, M-L. (2021). Finnish adolescents’ selection and assessment of health information sources. Information Research, 26(1). http://InformationR.net/ir/26-1/paper893.html. https://doi.org/10.47989/irpaper893

27. Ke, Q. & Du, J.T., & Ji, L. (2021). Toward a conceptual framework of health crisis information needs: an analysis of COVID-19 questions in a Chinese social Q&A website. Journal of Documentation, 77(4), 851-870. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2020-0173

28. Kim, H., & Oh, S. (2023). Everyday life information seeking in South Korea during the COVID-19 pandemic: daily topics of information needs in social Q&A. Online Information Review, 47(2), 414-430. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2021-0547

29. Kim, H., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Health information seeking of low economic status Hispanic adults using smartphones. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 67(5), 542-561. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-12-2014-0181

30. Kim, S.C., Shah, D.V., Namkoong, K., McTavish, F.M., & Gustafson, D.H (2013). Predictors of online health information seeking among women with breast cancer: the role of social support perception and emotional well-being. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(2), 212-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12002

31. Kivits, J. (2009). Everyday health and the internet: a mediated health perspective on health information seeking. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(5), 673-687. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01153.x

32. Kostagiolas, P., Milkas, A., Kourouthanassis, P., Dimitriadis, K., Tsioufis, K., Tousoulis, D., & Niakas, D. (2021). The impact of health information needs' satisfaction of hypertensive patients on their clinical outcomes. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 73(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2020-0082

33. Kostagiolas, P., Platis, C., Belitsas, A., Psomiadi, M.E., & Niakas, D. (2024). Lessons learned for infodemics management in future health crises by studying the fear of COVID-19 impact on health information seeking of general population. Aslib Journal of Information Management (published online 1 February 2024). https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2023-0023

34. Koya, K.,Chowdhury, G., & Green, E. (2022). Young informal carers’ information needs communicated online: professional and personal growth, finance, health and relationships. Journal of Information Science (published online 23 November 2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221136829

35. Kubb, C., & Foran, H.M. (2020). Online health information seeking by parents for their children: systematic review and agenda for further research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(8) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/19985.

36. Lee, H.S. (2018). A comparative study on the health information needs, seeking and source preferences among mothers of young healthy children: American mothers compared to recent immigrant Korean mothers. Information Research, 23(24). http://www.informationr.net/ir/23-4/paper803.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/74LkSYff7)

37. Lee, H.S., & Smith, C.A. (2022). A comparative mixed methods study on health information seeking among US-born/US-dwelling, Korean-born/US-dwelling, and Korean-born/Korean-dwelling mothers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73(7), 929-943. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24601

38. Lee, K., Hoti, K., Hughes, J.D., & Emmerton, L.M. (2015). Consumer use of “Dr google”: A survey on health information-seeking behaviors and navigational needs. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(12) (unpaginated).

39. Lee, K., Hoti, K., Hughes, J.D., & Emmerton, L. (2014). Dr Google and the consumer: a qualitative study exploring the navigational needs and online health information-seeking behaviors of consumers with chronic health conditions. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(12) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4345

40. Lee, Y.J., Boden-Albala, B., Larson, E., Wilcox, A., & Bakken, S. (2014). Online health information seeking behaviors of Hispanics in New York City: a community-based cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(7) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3499

41. Li, X., Luo, X., Cox, A., Zhang, Y., & Lu, Y. (2023). The mental health information needs of Chinese university students and their use of online resources: a holistic model. Journal of Documentation, 79(2), 442-467. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-12-2021-0249

42. Li, X., & Tang, K. (2023). The effects of online health Information-Seeking behavior on sexually transmitted disease in China: infodemiology study of the internet search queries. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(1) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/43046

43. Li, Y., & Wang, X. (2018). Seeking health information on social media: a perspective of trust, self-determination, and social support. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 30(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.4018/JOEUC.2018010101

44. Link, E., & Baumann, E. (2023). A comparison of women’s and men’s web-based information-seeking behaviors about gender-related health information: web-based survey study of a stratified German sample. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(1) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/43897

45. Link, E., Baumann, E., & Klimmt, C. (2021). Explaining online information seeking behaviors in people with different health statuses: German representative cross-sectional survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research (10 December 2021; e25963). https://doi.org/10.2196/25963

46. Lu, X. (2023). The effects of patient health information seeking in online health communities on patient compliance in China: social perspective. Journal of Medical Internet Research (9 January 2023: e38848). https://doi.org/10.2196/38848

47. Ma, D., Zuo, M., & Liu, L. (2021). The information needs of Chinese family members of cancer patients in the online health community: what and why? Information Processing & Management, 58(3) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102517

48. Malik, A., Islam, T., Ahmad, M., & Mahmood, K. (2023). Health information seeking and sharing behavior of young adults on social media in Pakistan. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 55(3), 579-595. https://doi.org/10.1177/096100062210902

49. Mansour, E., Shehata, A., & Farrag, A. (2023). Egyptian physicians' information-seeking behavior while serving in public isolation hospitals for coronavirus patients. Online Information Review, 47(3), 469-485. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2020-0350

50. Marton, C., & Chun, W.C. (2012). A review of theoretical models of health information seeking on the web. Journal of Documentation, 68(3), 330-352. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211225575

51. Miller, J.D., Ackerman, M. S., Laspra, B., & Huffaker, J. (2021). The acquisition of health and science information in the 21st century. The Information Society, 37(2), 82-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2020.1870022

52. Mirzaei, A., Aslani, P., Luca, E.J., & Schneider, C.R. (2021). Predictors of health information-seeking behavior: systematic literature review and network analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(7) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/21680

53. Mitsutake, S., Takahashi, Y., Otsuki, A., Umezawa, J., Yaguchi-Saito, A., & Saito, J. (2023). Chronic diseases and sociodemographic characteristics associated with online health information seeking and using social networking sites: nationally representative cross-sectional survey in Japan. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(1) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/44741

54. Montesi, M. (2021). Human information behavior during the Covid-19 health crisis. A literature review. Library & Information Science Research, 43(4) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101122

55. Moreno, A., Cristina, F. L., Tench, R., & Romenti, S. (2023). COVID-19 communication management in Europe: a comparative analysis of the effect of information-seeking in the public’s sense-making in Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Corporate Communications, 28(5), 744-768. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-06-2022-0063

56. Myrick, J.G. (2017). The role of emotions and social cognitive variables in online health information seeking processes and effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 422-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.071

57. Myrick, J.G., Willoughby, J.F., & Verghese, R.S., (2016). How and why young adults do and do not search for health information: cognitive and affective factors. Health Education Journal, 75(2), 208-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/001789691557176

58. Nazir, M., & Soroya, S. H. (2021). Health informatics: use of internet for health information seeking by Pakistani chronic patients. Journal of Library Administration, 61(1), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2020.1845552

59. Ojaperv, K., & Virkus, S. (2023). Pregnancy-related health information behaviour of Estonian women. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 72(3), 284-314. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-05-2021-0086

60. Paimre, M., Virkus, S., & Osula, K. (2023). Health information behavior and related factors among Estonians aged ≥ 50 years during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Documentation, 79(5), 1164-1181. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-10-2022-0217

61. Pálsdóttir, A. (2010). The connection between purposive information seeking and information encountering. A study of Icelanders' health and lifestyle information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 66(2), 224-244. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411011023634

62. Pálsdóttir, A. (2014). Preferences in the use of social media for seeking and communicating health and lifestyle information. Information Research, 19(4). http://InformationR.net/ir/19-4/paper642.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6UUsfeVem)

63. Park, M.S., Oh, H., & You, S. (2020). Health information seeking among people with multiple chronic conditions: contextual factors and their associations mined from questions in social media. Library & Information Science Research, 42(3) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101030

64. Rantala, A., Enwald, H., & Zinn, S. (2019). Web-based health information seeking: a small-scale comparative study between Finnish and South African university students. Library Hi Tech, 37(4), 933-944. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-08-2018-0109

65. Riaz, M., Wu, J., Sherani, M., Sher, A., Boamah, F. A., & Zhu, Y. (2023). An empirical evaluation of the predictors and consequences of social media health-misinformation seeking behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Internet Research, 33(5), 1871-1906. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-04-2022-0247

66. Rosenberg, D. (2023). Ethnic differences in utilization of online health information sources: a test of the social inequality hypotheses. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (published online 16 January 2023). https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221146843

67. Ruthven, I., Buchanan, S., & Jardine, C. (2018). Relationships, environment, health and development: the information needs expressed online by young first-time mothers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(8), 685-695. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24024

68. Sakai, Y., Kunimoto, C., & Kurata, K. (2012). Health information seekers in Japan: a snapshot of needs, behavior, and recognition in 2008. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100(3), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.011

69. Shamlou, Z., Mohammad, K.S., & Amiri, M. R. (2022). Application of theory of planned behavior in identifying factors affecting online health information seeking intention and behavior of women. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 74(4), 727-744. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-07-2021-0209

70. Sbaffi, L., & Zhao, C. (2020). Modeling the online health information seeking process: information channel selection among university students. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(2), 196-207. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24230

71. Shehata, A. (2021). Health information behaviour during COVID-19 outbreak among Egyptian library and information science undergraduate students. Information Development, 37(3), 417-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/026666692097618

72. Sherif, R. E., Pluye, P., & Ibekwe, F. (2022). Contexts and outcomes of proxy online health information seeking: mixed studies review with framework synthesis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(6) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/34345

73. Sherman, L.D., Kirby G., Bergeron, C.D., & Smith, M.L. (2021). Web-based health information seeking among African American and Hispanic men living with chronic conditions: cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(7) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/26180

74. Shi, Y., & Luo, L. (2020). Meeting Chinese older adults’ health information needs: the role of public libraries. Library Quarterly, 90(3), 332-348. https://doi.org/10.1086/708961

75. Soroya, S. H., & Faiola, A. (2023). Why did people avoid information during the COVID-19 pandemic? understanding information sources' dynamics among Pakistani Z generation. Library Hi Tech, 41(1), 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-02-2022-0113

76. Soroya, S.H., Farooq, A., Mahmooda, K., Isoaho, J., & Zara, S. (2021). From information seeking to information avoidance: understanding the health information behavior during a global health crisis. Information Processing & Management, 58(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102440

77. Stanarevic Katavic, S. (2019). Health information behaviour of rare disease patients: seeking, finding and sharing health information. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 36(4), 341-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12261

78. Stanarevic Katavic, S., Martinovic, I., & Kim, S.U. (2020). College students' sexual health information needs and source preferences in relation to worry about sexual health outcomes. Information Research, 25(1). http://InformationR.net/ir/25-1/paper853.html (Archived by the Internet Archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20200305160834)

79. Sullivan, M., & Shaw, G. (2023). The health information behaviors of people who inject drugs: a scoping review of the literature. Journal of Documentation, 79(6), 1502-1513. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2022-0153

80. Tahamtan, I., Tavassoli Farahi, M., Afshar, A.S., & Baradaran, H.R. (2015). Drug information seeking behaviours of health care professionals in Iran. New Library World, 116(3), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-06-2014-0070

81. Tan, S.S-L., & Goonawardene, N. (2017). Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5729

82. Tang, Y., Chen, L., Su, Y. (2024). Understanding health misinformation sharing among the middle-aged or above in China: roles of social media health information seeking, misperceptions and information processing predispositions. Online Information Review, 48(2), 314-333. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2023-0157

83. Tennant, B., Stellefson, M., Dodd, V., Chaney, B., Chaney, D., Paige, S., & Alber, J. (2015). eHealth literacy and web 2.0 health information seeking behaviors among baby boomers and older adults. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(3) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3992

84. Wang, J., Zhen, X., Coyte, P. C., Shao, D., Zhao, N., Chang, L., & Sun, X. (2023). Association between online health information-seeking behaviors by caregivers and delays in pediatric cancer: mixed methods study in China. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(1) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/46953

85. Wang, M.P., Wang, X., Viswanath, K., Wan, A., Lam, T.H., & Chan, S.S. (2014). Digital inequalities of family life information seeking and family well-being among Chinese adults in Hong Kong: a population survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(10) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3386

86. Wong, D.K., & Cheung, M. (2019). Online health information seeking and eHealth literacy among patients attending a primary care clinic in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/10831

87. Wu, D., & Li, Y. (2016). Online health information seeking behaviors among Chinese elderly. Library & Information Science Research, 38(3), 272-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2016.08.011

88. Wu, D., Xu, H., & Fan, S. (2021). Research on consumers' health information consultation patterns. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 73(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2020-0080

89. Yao, Z., Zhang, B., Ni, Z., & Ma, F. (2022). What users seek and share in online diabetes communities: examining similarities and differences in expressions and themes. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 74(2), 311-331. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-08-2021-0214

90. Yi, Y.J., Hwang, B., Yoon, H., & Jeong, H. (2021). Health literacy and health information-seeking behavior of immigrants in South Korea. Library & Information Science Research, 43(4) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101121

91. Yi, Y.J., Stvilia, B., & Mon, L. (2012). Cultural influences on seeking quality health information: an exploratory study of the Korean community. Library & Information Science Research, 34(1), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2011.06.001

92. Yigzaw, K.Y., Wynn, R., Marco-Ruiz, L., Budrionis, A., & Oyeyemi, S.O. (2020). The association between health information seeking on the Internet and physician visits. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(3) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/13120

93. Yoon, J.W., Huang, H., & Kim, S., (2017). Trends in health information-seeking behaviour in the U.S. foreign-born population based on the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2005-2014. Information Research, 22(3). http://InformationR.net/ir/22-3/paper760.html (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6tRRzDeUl)

94. Yoon, J., & Kim, S. (2014). Internet use by international graduate students in the USA seeking health information. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(2), 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2013-0005

95. Zamani, E.D., Sbaffi, L., & Kalua, K. (2024). Addressing the information needs of informal carers in Malawi: a healthcare intervention based on co-creation. Journal of Documentation, 80(1), 131-157. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-12-2022-0264

96. Zhang, X., Foo, S., Majid, S., Chang, Y-K., Dumaual, H.T.J., & Suri, V.R. (2020). Self-care and health-information-seeking behaviours of diabetic patients in Singapore. Health Communication, 35(8), 994-1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1606134

97. Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Li, Y., Lin, Z., Li, X., Tu, X., Zhou, Y., Qian, D., & Liu, H. (2022). The utilization of mobile phones in health information seeking in rural China. Libri, 72(3), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2021-0137

98. Zhao, Y., & Zhang, J. (2017). Consumer health information seeking in social media: a literature review. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 34(4), 268-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12192

99. Zhao, Y.C., Zhao, M., & Song, S. (2022). Online health information seeking among patients with chronic conditions: integrating the health belief model and social support theory. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(11) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/42447

100. Zhao, Y.C., Zhao, M., & Song, S. (2022). Online health information seeking behaviors among older adults: systematic scoping review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(2) (unpaginated). https://doi.org/10.2196/34790