Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34473063›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2021

Using Social Media for Peer-to-Peer Cancer Support: Interviews With Young Adults With Cancer.

Allison J Lazard, Meredith K Reffner Collins, Ashley Hedrick, Tushar Varma, Brad Love, Carmina G Valle, Erik Brooks, Catherine Benedict

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The use of social media interventions for breast cancer survivors: a narrative review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Allison J LazardHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2502-2850
Meredith K Reffner CollinsHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4324-8765
Ashley HedrickHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1174-5062
Tushar VarmaHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2074-9118
Brad LoveSchool of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3865-5219
Carmina G ValleLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1985-2409
Erik BrooksHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4622-0220
Catherine BenedictStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9622-249X
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USStanford University · USThe University of Texas at Austin · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based social support can address social isolation and unmet support needs among young adults with cancer (aged 18-39 years). Given that 94% of young adults own and use smartphones, social media can offer personalized, accessible social support among peers with cancer.

objectiveThis study aims to examine the specific benefits, downsides, and topics of social support via social media among young adults with cancer.

methodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with young adults with cancer, aged between 18 and 39 years, who were receiving treatment or had completed treatment for cancer.

resultsMost participants (N=45) used general audience platforms (eg, Facebook groups), and some cancer-specific social media (eg, Caring Bridge), to discuss relevant lived experiences for medical information (managing side effects and treatment uncertainty) and navigating life with cancer (parenting and financial issues). Participants valued socializing with other young adults with cancer, making connections outside their personal networks, and being able to validate their emotional and mental health experiences without time and physical constraints. However, using social media for peer support can be an emotional burden, especially when others post disheartening or harassing content, and can heighten privacy concerns, especially when navigating cancer-related stigma.

conclusionsSocial media allows young adults to connect with peers to share and feel validated about their treatment and life concerns. However, barriers exist for receiving support from social media; these could be reduced through content moderation and developing more customizable, potentially cancer-specific social media apps and platforms to enhance one's ability to find peers and manage groups.

Indexed as

cancer survivorsmobile phonepeer groupspyscho-oncologysocial mediasocial supportyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID34473063
PMCPMC8446843
OpenAlexW3198529841

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.