Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38090796›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Online Support Groups for Family Caregivers: Scoping Review.

Rosemary Daynes-Kearney, Stephen Gallagher

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
25.4field-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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Social media use and positive aspects of caregiving: a longitudinal test of the social compensation hypothesis.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Characteristics and Outcomes of Limb Loss Support Groups.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025
    Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rosemary Daynes-KearneyStudy of Anxiety, Stress and Health Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-2340-1934
Stephen GallagherStudy of Anxiety, Stress and Health Laboratory, Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-5471-7774
University of Limerick · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaregiving can affect people of all ages and can have significant negative health impacts on family caregivers themselves. Research has shown that social support acts as a buffer against many negative health impacts. A common source of social support is support groups. Although traditionally, these groups were conducted in a face-to-face setting, the advent of the internet, social media applications, and the smartphone have seen online support groups (OSGs) develop as a space where many caregivers seek support. The number of OSGs has increased exponentially, but there is no clear consensus on what factors or characteristics of OSGs contribute to social support development within them or what types of OSGs are available to family caregivers.

objectiveThis study aimed to conduct a scoping review to contribute to the understanding of the types and characteristics of OSGs for family caregivers.

methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, the CINAHL, PsychInfo, Psych Articles, Social Sciences, Communication Source, Medline, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies (caregiver focused, adults aged 18 years or older, online social support groups, caring for a living person, peer-reviewed journal publications on empirical research). In total, 19 studies were included in the review. The research questions were (1) what type of social support groups are online for adult family caregivers, (2) what the communication mediums and characteristics of these OSGs are, and (3) what psychosocial or other factors make OSGs successful or unsuccessful for participants.

resultsIn response to the first research question, we found that the majority of OSGs took place on public text-based forums and were illness specific. Where demographics were reported, participants were predominately women, White, and working with university-level education. There were a variety of caregiving relationships. For the second research question, the most common communication medium found was text-based communication, with the use of emojis, photos, and GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) files as part of these exchanges. Most frequently, the OSGs were asynchronous with a degree of anonymity, not time-limited by the frequency of contact or duration, and moderated by peer or professional moderators or facilitators. Results for the third research question explored the overarching categories of safe communication and engagement and group management. These described successful OSGs as having a focus on similar others with shared lived experiences communicated in a nonjudgmental space overseen by trained peer or professional facilitators.

conclusionsThere are several key considerations for OSGs to be successful for family caregivers. A general recommendation for practitioners is to give importance to building active moderation and multifaceted structures of support to meet different levels of caregiver needs and the ability to engage.

Indexed as

CaregiversSelf-Help GroupsAdultCommunicationFamilyFemaleHealth ServicesHumansSocial Supportcaregivercaregiver needscaregiverscaregivingcarercarerscommunicationdevelopmentengagementfamily careinformal carelife experienceonline supportonline support groupspeer supportpsychosocialreviewreview methodologyreview methodsscoping reviewsocial supportspousal caresupportunpaid care

Identifiers

PMID38090796
PMCPMC10753418
OpenAlexW4387755237

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.