ReviewJMIR cancer2018
Analysis of Content Shared in Online Cancer Communities: Systematic Review.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Digital Self-management Program (Help to Overcome Problems Effectively) for People Living With Cancer: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Trial
- Digital technology as a tool to provide social support to individuals with cancer in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Evaluating the User-Perceived Benefit of a Virtual Lung Cancer Patient Education and Support Community: LVNG With Lung Cancer.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Multiple-Perspective Data-Driven Analysis of Online Health Communities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Community and Opinion Leadership Effects on Vaping Discourse: A Network Analysis of Online Reddit Threads.Journal of health communication · 2023Article
- Nurses' Work Concerns and Disenchantment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Machine Learning Analysis of Web-Based Discussions.JMIR nursing · 2023Article
- Need for numbers: assessing cancer survivors' needs for personalized and generic statistical information.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Understanding the needs and perspectives of ovarian cancer patients when considering PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy: Findings from two online community events.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2022Article
- Exploring Resource-Sharing Behaviors for Finding Relevant Health Resources: Analysis of an Online Ovarian Cancer Community.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
- Exploring Unmet Information Needs of People with Parkinson's Disease and Their Families: Focusing on Information Sharing in an Online Patient Community.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Changes in internet use and wishes of cancer survivors: A comparison between 2005 and 2017.Cancer · 2020Article
- 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 · 2019Article
- Article
- Secret groups and open forums: Defining online support communities from the perspective of people affected by cancer.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.