Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32329746›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2020

Design, Delivery, Maintenance, and Outcomes of Peer-to-Peer Online Support Groups for People With Chronic Musculoskeletal Disorders: Systematic Review.

Liam R Maclachlan, Kathryn Mills, Belinda J Lawford, Thorlene Egerton, Jenny Setchell, Leanne M Hall, Melanie L Plinsinga, Manuela Besomi, Pek Ling Teo, Jillian P Eyles and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Liam R Maclachlan *The School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2704-9897
Kathryn Mills *Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0360-733X
Belinda J LawfordCentre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0392-6058
Thorlene EgertonCentre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4751-7624
Jenny SetchellThe School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1946-4492
Leanne M HallThe School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9641-9217
Melanie L PlinsingaThe School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8902-7434
Manuela BesomiThe School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8880-4561
Pek Ling TeoCentre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1657-1820
Jillian P EylesFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1625-8490
Rebecca MellorThe School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8198-5291
Luciano MeloSax Institute, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4742-4401
Sarah RobbinsFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2587-1649
Paul W HodgesThe School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1206-9107
David J HunterFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3197-752X
Bill VicenzinoThe School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0253-5933
Kim L BennellCentre for Health, Exercise & Sports Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4982-5639
The University of Queensland · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AUMacquarie University · AUSax Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline support groups (OSGs) are one way for people with chronic diseases, their family or friends, and health professionals to communicate, gain information, and provide social support. As the number of peer-to-peer OSGs for chronic musculoskeletal conditions grows, it is important to gain insight into the different designs of groups available, who is accessing them, if and how they may be effective, and what strategies are being used to implement or increase consumer engagement.

objectiveThe objectives of this systematic review of people with musculoskeletal conditions were to (1) describe the design features (functions, usage options, moderation, and expert input) of peer-to-peer OSGs, (2) describe the characteristics of the individuals using peer-to-peer OSGs, (3) synthesize the evidence on outcomes of participation, and (4) identify strategies used in the delivery and maintenance of OSGs.

methodsA search comprising terms related to the population (people with musculoskeletal disorders) and the intervention (peer-to-peer OSGs) was conducted in 6 databases. Results were filtered from 1990 (internet inception) to February 2019. Studies identified in the search were screened according to predefined eligibility criteria using a 2-step process. Quantitative studies were appraised by 2 reviewers using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Qualitative studies were appraised by 2 different reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Extracted data were synthesized narratively.

resultsWe examined 21 studies with low to moderate risk of bias. Of these studies, 13 studies included OSGs hosted on public platforms, 11 studies examined OSGs that were conducted in English, and 6 studies used moderators or peer leaders to facilitate engagement. Studies either reported the number of OSG members (n=1985 across all studies) or the number of posts (range: 223-200,000). The majority of OSG members were females who were not full-time employees and with varied levels of education. There were no randomized controlled trials measuring the efficacy of OSGs. Qualitative and quantitative studies identified empowerment, social support, self-management behavior, and health literacy as primary constructs to measure OSG efficacy. Neutral or marginal improvement was reported in these constructs. Sharing experiences and a greater level of engagement appeared to have an important influence on OSGs efficacy. The extent to which members posted on the website influenced engagement.

conclusionsAcross a diverse range of designs, languages, included features, and delivery platforms, peer-to-peer OSGs for chronic musculoskeletal conditions attract predominantly female participants of all ages and education levels. The level of participation of a member appears to be related to their perceived benefit, health literacy, and empowerment. Future studies are needed to identify which design and maintenance strategies have superior efficacy and whether there are concomitant improvements in health outcomes for people with chronic musculoskeletal conditions resulting from participation in OSGs.

trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42018090326; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018090326.

Indexed as

Peer GroupChronic DiseaseFemaleHumansMaleMusculoskeletal DiseasesQualitative ResearchSelf-Help GroupsTelemedicineTreatment Outcomeempowermentmusculoskeletal diseasesonline social networkingsocial support

Identifiers

PMID32329746
PMCPMC7210497
OpenAlexW3003513492

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.