ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2016
"You get to know the people and whether they're talking sense or not": Negotiating trust on health-related forums.
Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating Diabetes Management in the Digital Era: Scoping Review of Online Health Information-Seeking Behavior.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Peer health literacy level and health literacy among school-aged children and adolescents: a multilevel moderated mediation model of internet health information acquisition.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Accelerating Global Interest in Genicular Artery Embolization: A Google Trends Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Social Listening as a Tool to Understand Nutrition-Related Information Needs: A Case Study in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Article
- Identifying the e-health prevalence and influence pattern: A cross-sectional study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- Self-Induced Mania Methods and Motivations Reported in Online Forums: Observational Qualitative Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2024Article
- Experiences and Views of Young People and Health Care Professionals of Using Social Media to Self-Manage Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- A qualitative exploration of online forums to support resilience of rural young people in Australia.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Using Social Media as a Research Tool for a Bespoke Web-Based Platform for Stakeholders of Children With Congenital Anomalies: Development Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2021Article
- A Revised Model of Trust in Internet-Based Health Information and Advice: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Online stroke forum as source of data for qualitative research: insights from a comparison with patients' interviews.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Accessing support and empowerment online: The experiences of individuals with diabetes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Development of Trust in an Online Breast Cancer Forum: A Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- The effect of Dr Google on doctor-patient encounters in primary care: a quantitative, observational, cross-sectional study.BJGP open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The internet is increasingly being used as a source of health advice and information by individuals with long term conditions (LTCs). Specifically, online forums allow people to interact with others with similar conditions. However, it is not clear how online health information is assessed by those with LTCs. This study aims to address this gap by exploring how individuals with contested and uncontested LTCs utilise internet forums. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants with ME/CFS and 21 participants with type 1 and 2 diabetes and analysed using thematic analysis. Participants were recruited via online and offline routes, namely forums, email lists, newsletters, and face-to-face support groups. The findings indicate that the use of online forums was a complex and nuanced process and was influenced by a number of individual and illness-specific factors. Participants trusted those with similar experiences and perspectives as themselves, while also valuing conventional biomedical information and advice. By accessing support online, forum users were able to draw on a personalised form of support based on the lived experiences of their peers. However, the role of digital literacy in developing and maintaining online relationships must be acknowledged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.