Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34032572›Full record

ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2021

Web-Based Peer Support Interventions for Adults Living With Chronic Conditions: Scoping Review.

Saima N Hossain, Susan B Jaglal, John Shepherd, Laure Perrier, Jennifer R Tomasone, Shane N Sweet, Dorothy Luong, Sonya Allin, Michelle L A Nelson, Sara J T Guilcher and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Saima N Hossain *Toronto Rehabilitation Insititute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2952-8832
Susan B Jaglal *Toronto Rehabilitation Insititute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2930-1443
John Shepherd *Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8072-3775
Laure Perrier *University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9941-7129
Jennifer R Tomasone *School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0446-9706
Shane N Sweet *School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6172-3769
Dorothy Luong *Toronto Rehabilitation Insititute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6997-2882
Sonya Allin *Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6611-2265
Michelle L A Nelson *Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2002-0298
Sara J T GuilcherInstitute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9552-9139
Sarah E P Munce *Toronto Rehabilitation Institute - Rumsey Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0595-8395
University of Toronto · CAUniversity Health Network · CAQueen's University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, 1 in 3 adults live with multiple chronic conditions. Thus, effective interventions are needed to prevent and manage these chronic conditions and to reduce the associated health care costs. Teaching effective self-management practices to people with chronic diseases is one strategy to address the burden of chronic conditions. With the increasing availability of and access to the internet, the implementation of web-based peer support programs has become increasingly common.

objectiveThe purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize existing literature and key characteristics of web-based peer support programs for persons with chronic conditions.

methodsThis scoping review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews guidelines. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Chronic diseases identified by the Public Health Agency of Canada were included. Our review was limited to peer support interventions delivered on the web. Peers providing support had to have the chronic condition that they were providing support for. The information abstracted included the year of publication, country of study, purpose of the study, participant population, key characteristics of the intervention, outcome measures, and results.

resultsAfter duplicates were removed, 12,641 articles were screened. Data abstraction was completed for 41 articles. There was a lack of participant diversity in the included studies, specifically with respect to the conditions studied. There was a lack of studies with older participants aged ≥70 years. There was inconsistency in how the interventions were described in terms of the duration and frequency of the interventions. Informational, emotional, and appraisal support were implemented in the studied interventions. Few studies used a randomized controlled trial design. A total of 4 of the 6 randomized controlled trials reported positive and significant results, including decreased emotional distress and increased health service navigation, self-efficacy, social participation, and constructive attitudes and approaches. Among the qualitative studies included in this review, there were several positive experiences related to participating in a web-based peer support intervention, including increased compassion and improved attitudes toward the individual's chronic condition, access to information, and empowerment.

conclusionsThere is limited recent, high-level evidence on web-based peer support interventions. Where evidence exists, significant improvements in social participation, self-efficacy, and health-directed activity were demonstrated. Some studies incorporated a theoretical framework, and all forms of peer support-emotional, informational, and appraisal support-were identified in the studies included in this review. We recommend further research on web-based peer support in more diverse patient groups (eg, for older adults and chronic conditions outside of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and HIV or AIDS). Key gaps in the area of web-based peer support will serve to inform the development and implementation of future programs.

Indexed as

chronic conditionsonlinepeer supportscoping reviewself-management

Identifiers

PMID34032572
PMCPMC8188320
OpenAlexW3164731933

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.