Abstract

Expectant parents use health communication messaging to make decisions about their childbirth plans. Recently, women have increasingly chosen to use doulas, or people who provide non-medical support during childbirth. This essay analyzes how a hospital designed public communication through promotional efforts regarding their no-cost, volunteer doula program. We use rhetorical analysis to analyze 19 promotional texts. By analyzing these materials through the rhetorical method of presence and absence, we found that the health discourse related to the doula program gave presence to expectant mothers. Additionally, the benefits of doulas, especially in relation to fathers or partners, remained absent in promoting the volunteer doula program. Through specific communication design recommendations, we focus on how to improve this communication to increase the use of doulas in our community, and in other communities. We conclude with implications and limitations of the study.

Journal
Communication Design Quarterly
Published
2015-09-17
DOI
10.1145/2826972.2826979
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Communication Design Quarterly

Cites in this index (7)

  1. Communication Design Quarterly
  2. Rhetoric Review
  3. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  4. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
  5. Technical Communication Quarterly
Show all 7 →
  1. Technical Communication Quarterly
  2. Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Also cites 26 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1080/15295030802031772
  2. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00393.x
  3. 10.1080/00335630802422212
  4. 10.1177/0963662508094098
  5. 10.1037/0278-6133.27.1.110
  6. 10.1080/08934210600918758
  7. 10.1080/03637758409390180
  8. 10.1177/1075547014568418
  9. 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00003-8
  10. 10.1075/dd.4.1.07ied
  11. 10.1037/0278-6133.24.3.321
  12. Koerber A. (2013). Breast or bottle? Contemporary controversies in infant-feeding policy and practice. Columb…
  13. 10.1080/07491409.2010.507577
  14. 10.1080/00028533.2011.11821753
  15. 10.1080/07491409.2012.724527
  16. 10.1177/0963662507080551
  17. 10.1016/j.whi.2005.01.002
  18. 10.1080/00335639609384164
  19. 10.1080/00028533.2014.11821838
  20. 10.1624/105812407X244903
  21. 10.1080/10410236.2011.568999
  22. 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3
  23. 10.1089/jwh.1.1999.8.1257
  24. 10.1177/1470357212453978
  25. 10.1126/science.7455683
  26. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.037
CrossRef global citation count: 4 View in citation network →