Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29735472›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2018

Scaling PatientsLikeMe via a "Generalized Platform" for Members with Chronic Illness: Web-Based Survey Study of Benefits Arising.

Paul Wicks, Eileen Mack Thorley, Kristina Simacek, Christopher Curran, Cathy Emmas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Digital Patient Experience: Umbrella Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul WicksPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2293-9284
Eileen Mack ThorleyPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8704-3438
Kristina SimacekPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0478-4397
Christopher CurranPatientsLikeMe, Cambridge, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3283-550X
Cathy EmmasAstraZeneca UK Ltd, Luton, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6412-5502
IQVIA (United States) · USAstraZeneca (United Kingdom) · GBPatientsLikeMe (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaunched in 2006 for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, PatientsLikeMe is an online community offering patient-reported outcomes, symptom tracking, and social features. Every member of the site can see all the data reported by every other member, view aggregated reports, identify "patients like them," and learn about treatment options in order to live better with their condition. In previous studies, members reported benefits such as improved condition knowledge, increased medication adherence, and better management of side effects. However, the site evolved in 2011 from condition-specific "vertical" communities consisting only of people with the same disease to a "generalized platform," in which every patient could connect with every other patient regardless of condition and with generic, rather than condition-specific, data tools. Some, but not all, communities received further custom tracking tools.

objectiveWe aimed to understand (1) whether members of PatientsLikeMe using the generalized platform still reported similar benefits and (2) assess factors associated with benefits, such as community customization, site use, and patient activation.

methodsA cross-sectional retrospective custom survey was fielded to 377,625 members between 2016 and 2017 including the Patient Activation Measure (PAM). A benefit index was developed for comparability across conditions.

resultsThe invitation was viewed by 26,048 members of whom 11,915 did not respond, 5091 opted out, 1591 provided partial data, and 17 were screened out. Complete responses were received from 7434 participants. Users perceived greatest benefit in understanding how their condition may affect them (4530/6770, 66.91% participants, excluding "does not apply" answers), understanding what might help them live better with their condition (4247/6750, 62.92%), which treatments were available (4143/6898, 60.06%), understanding treatment side effects (4182/6902, 60.59%), and important factors in making treatment decisions (3919/6813, 57.52%). The benefit index was 29% higher for the "most activated" patients (PAM level 4 vs PAM level 1; relative risk [RR]=1.29, P<.001), 21% higher for conditions with some community customization versus none (RR=1.21, P<.001), and 11% higher in those using the site most often versus least (RR=1.11, P<.001).

conclusionsMembers of the generalized platform reported a range of benefits related to improved knowledge and understanding of their condition and treatment management. Condition-specific customization may improve their experience still further. Future studies will explore longitudinal changes to patient activation.

Indexed as

Amyotrophic Lateral SclerosisChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationRetrospective StudiesSocial SupportSurveys and Questionnaireshealth careonline health communityonline support grouppersonal health recordspersonal monitoringpersonal trackingself-help devicessocial supporttechnology

Identifiers

PMID29735472
PMCPMC5962830
OpenAlexW2801760223

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.