Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28916507›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017

Cardiac Patients' Experiences and Perceptions of Social Media: Mixed-Methods Study.

Stephanie R Partridge, Anne C Grunseit, Patrick Gallagher, Becky Freeman, Blythe J O'Hara, Lis Neubeck, Sarah Due, Glenn Paull, Ding Ding, Adrian Bauman and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase I
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Facebook Groups for the Management of Chronic Diseases.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018
    Article
  14. 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

15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephanie R PartridgePrevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5390-3922
Anne C GrunseitPrevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1250-3265
Patrick GallagherPrevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9793-1746
Becky FreemanPrevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2082-9612
Blythe J O'HaraPrevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9984-0656
Lis NeubeckSchool of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5852-1034
Sarah DueSt. George Hospital, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2795-3974
Glenn PaullSt. George Hospital, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6842-342X
Ding DingPrevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9850-9224
Adrian BaumanPrevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0369-4621
Philayrath PhongsavanPrevention Research Collaboration, Sydney School of Public Health, Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2460-5031
Kellie RoachRyde Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0823-0751
Leonie SadlerManly Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6041-5094
Helen GlinatsisRoyal North Shore Hospital, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8184-5587
Robyn GallagherSydney Nursing School, Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5588-9351
The University of Sydney · AUSt George Hospital · AUManly Hospital · AUNorthern Sydney Local Health District · AURoyal North Shore Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditional in-person cardiac rehabilitation has substantial benefits for cardiac patients, which are offset by poor attendance. The rapid increase in social media use in older adults provides an opportunity to reach patients who are eligible for cardiac rehabilitation but unable to attend traditional face-to-face groups. However, there is a paucity of research on cardiac patients' experiences and perspectives on using social media to support their health.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to describe cardiac rehabilitation patients' experiences in using social media in general and their perspective on using social media, particularly Facebook, to support their cardiac health and secondary prevention efforts.

methodsA mixed-methods study was undertaken among cardiac rehabilitation patients in both urban and rural areas. First, this study included a survey (n=284) on social media use and capability. Second, six focus group interviews were conducted with current Facebook users (n=18) to elucidate Facebook experience and perspectives.

resultsSocial media use was low (28.0%, 79/282) but more common in participants who were under 70 years of age, employed, and had completed high school. Social media users accessed Web-based information on general health issues (65%, 51/79), medications (56%, 44/79), and heart health (43%, 34/79). Participants were motivated to invest time in using Facebook for "keeping in touch" with family and friends and to be informed by expert cardiac health professionals and fellow cardiac participants if given the opportunity. It appeared that participants who had a higher level of Facebook capability (understanding of features and the consequences of their use and efficiency in use) spent more time on Facebook and reported higher levels of "liking," commenting, or sharing posts. Furthermore, higher Facebook capability appeared to increase a participants' willingness to participate in a cardiac Facebook support group. More capable users were more receptive to the use of Facebook for cardiac rehabilitation and more likely to express interest in providing peer support. Recommended features for a cardiac rehabilitation Facebook group included a closed group, expert cardiac professional involvement, provision of cardiac health information, and ensuring trustworthiness of the group.

conclusionsCardiac health professionals have an opportunity to capitalize on cardiac patients' motivations and social media, mostly Facebook, as well as the capability for supporting cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention. Participants' favored purposeful time spent on Facebook and their cardiac health provides such a purpose for a Facebook intervention. The study results will inform the development of a Facebook intervention for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCardiac RehabilitationHumansMiddle AgedPerceptionQualitative ResearchSocial MediaSurveys and Questionnairescardiac rehabilitationcardiovascular diseasequalitative researchsecondary preventionsocial media

Identifiers

PMID28916507
PMCPMC5622287
OpenAlexW2754498303

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.