Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37091112›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2023

Perspectives of People With Cancer or Hereditary Cancer Risk on the Use and Value of Online Peer Support.

Jill Holdren, Karl Surkan, Andrea Downing

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jill HoldrenThe Light Collective, Eugene, OR.
Karl SurkanThe Light Collective, Eugene, OR.
Andrea DowningThe Light Collective, Eugene, OR.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: People with cancer routinely seek information and support in peer groups online. While peer communities constitute a major component of the health care landscape, they exist in isolation from clinical and research institutions. This study aimed to explore how and why cancer patients utilize online peer support groups and how they might be improved. Methods: A convenience sample of members of 6 closed Facebook cancer peer support groups (n=291) participated in an online needs assessment survey. We further conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 members and 6 moderator-patients, hand-coding the free-text responses and interview transcripts. Results: Group participation was largely motivated by the desire to exchange information (79%) and to connect with others sharing the same condition (76%). Among study participants, 40% indicated they did not get information or support from any other online or offline organizations, 60% indicated they had few concerns with Facebook peer support groups, 84% indicated it was at least somewhat important that their health information and posts remain private, and 75% desired more input from experts in order to access evidence-based information and curb misinformation. About half wanted more group moderation, and moderators themselves expressed an urgent need for training and support. Conclusions: While online peer groups are a commonly utilized care component for many people with cancer or hereditary cancer risk and serve as a primary source of condition information, many participants desired more expert involvement in and moderation of groups. Privacy and security of health information was another key need expressed.

Indexed as

breast cancerFacebook grouphealth information sharingmisinformationmoderationonline health communitiesovarian cancerpeer supportprivacy riskssocial media

Identifiers

PMID37091112
PMCPMC10117532
OpenAlexW4366331249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.