Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28958985›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2017

The Impact of Participation in Online Cancer Communities on Patient Reported Outcomes: Systematic Review.

Mies C van Eenbergen, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse, Peter Heine, Floortje Mols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Engagement with INSPIRE, an Online Program for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Survivors.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2018
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A qualitative study of online support communities for lung cancer survivors on targeted therapies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  19. 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.

Mies C van Eenbergen *Department of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6731-3296
Lonneke V van de Poll-FranseDepartment of Research, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0413-6872
Peter HeineStichting kanker.nl, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0943-3895
Floortje MolsDepartment of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0818-2913

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, the question of how patients' participating in online communities affects various patient reported outcomes (PROs) has been investigated in several ways.

objectivesThis study aimed to systematically review all relevant literature identified using key search terms, with regard to, first, changes in PROs for cancer patients who participate in online communities and, second, the characteristics of patients who report such effects.

methodsA computerized search of the literature via PubMed (MEDLINE), PsycINFO (5 and 4 stars), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ScienceDirect was performed. Last search was conducted in June 2017. Studies with the following terms were included: (cancer patient) and (support group or health communities) and (online or Internet). A total of 21 studies were included and independently assessed by 2 investigators using an 11-item quality checklist.

resultsThe methodological quality of the selected studies varied: 12 were of high quality, eight were of adequate quality, and only one was of low quality. Most of the respondents were women (about 80%), most with breast cancer; their mean age was 50 years. The patients who were active in online support groups were mostly younger and more highly educated than the nonusers. The investigated PROs included general well-being (ie, mood and health), anxiety, depression, quality of life, posttraumatic growth, and cancer-related concerns. Only marginal effects-that is, PRO improvements-were found; in most cases they were insignificant, and in some cases they were contradictory.

conclusionsThe main shortcoming of this kind of study is the lack of methodological instruments for reliable measurements. Furthermore, some patients who participate in online communities or interact with peers via Internet do not expect to measure changes in their PROs. If cancer survivors want to meet other survivors and share information or get support, online communities can be a trustworthy and reliable platform to facilitate opportunities or possibilities to make this happen.

Indexed as

cancerInternetpatient reported outcomessupport groupssurvivors

Identifiers

PMID28958985
PMCPMC5639205

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.