Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38407949›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Help-Seeking, Support, and Engagement in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Online Communities on Facebook: Content Analysis.

Sheila Pham, Kate Churruca, Louise A Ellis, Jeffrey Braithwaite

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Endometriosis Communities on Reddit: Quantitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 'No matter what time of day': The value of joining Facebook groups supporting women's self-management of gestational diabetes mellitus.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sheila PhamAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1844-2873
Kate ChurrucaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9923-3116
Louise A EllisAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6902-4578
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0296-4957
Macquarie University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has drastically risen in recent years. For some, self-management includes the use of GDM online communities on Facebook. Such communities can fill gaps in information and support that participants are not able to access elsewhere to address unmet needs. Given the popularity of sharing information about pregnancy on Facebook and the documented benefits of diabetes online communities, the same may be true of GDM online communities.

objectiveThis study aimed to categorize and quantify what is being discussed in GDM Facebook groups, including informational and emotional help-seeking behavior, and how this support and engagement may be demonstrated by peers through comments and reactions.

methodsWe sourced the data from the 2 largest Facebook groups focused on GDM in Australia. A summative content analysis was conducted on original posts across the 2 groups and coded for topics as well as help-seeking types. The coding scheme was based on the previous work of Liang and Scammon. Visible indicators of engagement, including the number of comments and "reactions," were tabled and manually evaluated.

resultsThere were 388 original posts, and the analysis produced 6 topics: GDM self-management (199/388, 51.3%), GDM clinical management (120/388, 30.9%), preparing for birth (40/388, 10.3%), mental distress (35/388, 9%), birth announcement (29/388, 7.5%), and GDM journey reflections (21/388, 5.4%). Secondary coding of help-seeking type revealed more than half of the posts were informational help-seeking (224/388, 57.7%), while a small proportion were both informational and emotional help-seeking (44/388, 11.3%), and some (12/388, 3.1%) were emotional help-seeking only. Self-disclosure was identified as a fourth category, comprising almost a quarter of all posts (90/388, 23.2%). A total of 6022 comments were posted in response to the original posts, and there were 4452 reactions across all posts. Emotional help-seeking attracted the most comments per thread (mean 21.5, SD 19.8), followed by informational and emotional help-seeking (mean 20.2, SD 14.7), informational help-seeking (mean 15.6, SD 14.6), and self-disclosure (mean 14.3, SD 21.8). Across all help-seeking categories, few reactions occurred compared to comments; in contrast, self-disclosure attracted a large number of reactions (mean 9.4, SD 45.3).

conclusionsThis is one of the first studies to examine peer support in a GDM online community on Facebook. Our findings suggest that active participants' needs around information and support in relation to GDM are being somewhat met by peer-led online communities. Given the practical limitations of formal health care, including the provision of ongoing social support, it is important to recognize how GDM online communities can complement formal health care and help address unmet needs.

Indexed as

clinical managementcommunicationcontent analysisengagementFacebookgestational diabeteshealth communicationhelp-seeking behaviormental distressonline communitiespeer-supportself-disclosureself-managementsupport

Identifiers

PMID38407949
PMCPMC10928526
OpenAlexW4392155867

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.