Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29615384›Full record

ReviewJMIR cancer2018

Analysis of Content Shared in Online Cancer Communities: Systematic Review.

Mies C van Eenbergen, Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse, Emiel Krahmer, Suzan Verberne, Floortje Mols

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 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. Article
  12. Article
  13. Yonder: Near misses, cancer communities, binge-eating disorder, and food banks.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Mies C van EenbergenDepartment 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
Emiel KrahmerTilburg Center for Cognition and Communication, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6304-7549
Suzan VerberneLeiden Institute of Advanced Computer Science, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-9505
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

backgroundThe content that cancer patients and their relatives (ie, posters) share in online cancer communities has been researched in various ways. In the past decade, researchers have used automated analysis methods in addition to manual coding methods. Patients, providers, researchers, and health care professionals can learn from experienced patients, provided that their experience is findable.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically review all relevant literature that analyzes user-generated content shared within online cancer communities. We reviewed the quality of available research and the kind of content that posters share with each other on the internet.

methodsA computerized literature search was performed via PubMed (MEDLINE), PsycINFO (5 and 4 stars), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ScienceDirect. The last search was conducted in July 2017. Papers were selected if they included the following terms: (cancer patient) and (support group or health communities) and (online or internet). We selected 27 papers and then subjected them to a 14-item quality checklist independently scored by 2 investigators.

resultsThe methodological quality of the selected studies varied: 16 were of high quality and 11 were of adequate quality. Of those 27 studies, 15 were manually coded, 7 automated, and 5 used a combination of methods. The best results can be seen in the papers that combined both analytical methods. The number of analyzed posts ranged from 200 to 1,500,000; the number of analyzed posters ranged from 75 to 90,000. The studies analyzing large numbers of posts mainly related to breast cancer, whereas those analyzing small numbers were related to other types of cancers. A total of 12 studies involved some or entirely automatic analysis of the user-generated content. All the authors referred to two main content categories: informational support and emotional support. In all, 15 studies reported only on the content, 6 studies explicitly reported on content and social aspects, and 6 studies focused on emotional changes.

conclusionsIn the future, increasing amounts of user-generated content will become available on the internet. The results of content analysis, especially of the larger studies, give detailed insights into patients' concerns and worries, which can then be used to improve cancer care. To make the results of such analyses as usable as possible, automatic content analysis methods will need to be improved through interdisciplinary collaboration.

Indexed as

cancerinternetsupport groupssurvivors

Identifiers

PMID29615384
PMCPMC5904449

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.