Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26764193›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016

Website Sharing in Online Health Communities: A Descriptive Analysis.

Chinmoy Nath, Jina Huh, Abhishek Kalyan Adupa, Siddhartha R Jonnalagadda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

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

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

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

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

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

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Motivation Research on the Content Creation Behaviour of Young Adults in Anxiety Disorder Online Communities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Digital Health Technology to Enhance Adolescent and Young Adult Clinical Preventive Services: Affordances and Challenges.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Analysis of Network Structure and Doctor Behaviors in E-Health Communities from a Social-Capital Perspective.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  17. Diabetes on Twitter: A Sentiment Analysis.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Knowledge Discovery from Posts in Online Health Communities Using Unified Medical Language System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Chinmoy NathDivision of Health and Biomedical Informatics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6322-4373

Funding

Improving the Efficiency and Efficacy in Authoring Essential Clinical FAQsR00LM011389 · NLM · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI JONNALAGADDA, SIDDHARTHA REDDY · 2013 to 2015
$665k
InfoMediator: Weaving Clinical Expertise in Online Health CommunitiesK01LM011980 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI HUH-YOO, JINA · 2014 to 2016
$466k
NLM NIH HHS K01 LM011980NLM NIH HHS R00 LM011389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing number of people visit online health communities to seek health information. In these communities, people share experiences and information with others, often complemented with links to different websites. Understanding how people share websites can help us understand patients' needs in online health communities and improve how peer patients share health information online.

objectiveOur goal was to understand (1) what kinds of websites are shared, (2) information quality of the shared websites, (3) who shares websites, (4) community differences in website-sharing behavior, and (5) the contexts in which patients share websites. We aimed to find practical applications and implications of website-sharing practices in online health communities.

methodsWe used regular expressions to extract URLs from 10 WebMD online health communities. We then categorized the URLs based on their top-level domains. We counted the number of trust codes (eg, accredited agencies' formal evaluation and PubMed authors' institutions) for each website to assess information quality. We used descriptive statistics to determine website-sharing activities. To understand the context of the URL being discussed, we conducted a simple random selection of 5 threads that contained at least one post with URLs from each community. Gathering all other posts in these threads resulted in 387 posts for open coding analysis with the goal of understanding motivations and situations in which website sharing occurred.

resultsWe extracted a total of 25,448 websites. The majority of the shared websites were .com (59.16%, 15,056/25,448) and WebMD internal (23.2%, 5905/25,448) websites; the least shared websites were social media websites (0.15%, 39/25,448). High-posting community members and moderators posted more websites with trust codes than low-posting community members did. The heart disease community had the highest percentage of websites containing trust codes compared to other communities. Members used websites to disseminate information, supportive evidence, resources for social support, and other ways to communicate.

conclusionsOnline health communities can be used as important health care information resources for patients and caregivers. Our findings inform patients' health information-sharing activities. This information assists health care providers, informaticians, and online health information entrepreneurs and developers in helping patients and caregivers make informed choices.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationInternetSocial SupportHealth PersonnelHumansconsumer-health informaticsonline health communitiesonline health community moderatorsonline systemspatient empowermentURLsWeb resources

Identifiers

PMID26764193
PMCPMC4730108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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