Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31746772›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2019

Collective Empowerment in Online Health Communities: Scale Development and Empirical Validation.

Sara Atanasova, Gregor Petric

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2019. 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Clusters of Patient Empowerment and Mental Health Literacy Differentiate Professional Help-Seeking Attitudes in Online Mental Health Communities Users.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Pregnancy-Related Information Seeking in Online Health Communities: A Qualitative Study.Diversity, divergence, dialogue : 16th international conference, iConference 2021, Beijing, China, March 17-31, 2021 : proceedings. iConference (Conference) (16th : 2021 : Online) · 2021
    Article
  13. 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

2 authors.

Sara AtanasovaCentre for Methodology and Informatics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-4162-1367
Gregor PetricCentre for Methodology and Informatics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0001-5975-5318

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe role of online health communities (OHCs) in patient empowerment is growing and has been increasingly studied in recent years. Research has focused primarily on individualistic conception of patients' empowerment, with much less attention paid to the role of OHCs in the development of patients' collective empowerment. Although OHCs have immense potential for empowerment that goes beyond the individual, the concept and scale of collective empowerment in OHCs have not yet been developed or validated.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop an instrument for measuring collective empowerment in online health communities (CE-OHC) and to test its quality by investigating its factorial structure, reliability, construct validity, and predictive validity.

methodsThe CE-OHC scale was developed according to a strict methodology for developing valid and reliable scales. An initial set of 20 items was first tested in the pilot study conducted in 2016 using a sample of 280 registered users of Slovenia's largest OHC. A refined version with 11 items was tested in the main study conducted in 2018 on a random sample of 30,000 registered users of the same OHC. The final sample comprised 784 users. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to investigate the factorial structure, discriminant validity, and convergent validity of the scale. Cronbach alpha coefficient was used to determine the CE-OHC scale's internal consistency. To establish the predictive validity, ordinary least squares regression was performed to test the role of CE-OHC in users' civic participation.

resultsThe EFA resulted in a two-factor solution, and the two factors-knowledge of resources and resource mobilization for collective action-together explain 63.8% of the variance. The second-order CFA demonstrated a good fit to the data (root mean square error of approximation=0.07) and the scale had a good internal consistency (alpha=.86). Although evidence of the scale's convergent validity was partially provided, discriminant validity of the scale remained unconfirmed. Overall, CE-OHC was confirmed to be a predictor of users' civic participation, but the influence was somewhat weak and inconsistent across two subscales.

conclusionsThe proposed CE-OHC scale is a reliable and relatively valid instrument and serves as a good baseline to advance the measurement of collective empowerment in OHC contexts. This is the first scale developed for this purpose, and future research should focus on the development of a clear nomological network of the collective empowerment construct in relation to the OHC settings.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansMalePatient ParticipationPilot ProjectsPublic HealthReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicinecollective empowermentonline health communitypatient empowermentpsychometricsreliabilityvalidityweights and measures

Identifiers

PMID31746772
PMCPMC6893566

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.