ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice of family caregivers of people with Alzheimer's.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionKnowledge sharing can only happen in the context of a trusting and supportive environment, such as evolves in communities of practice and their virtual equivalent, virtual communities of practice. The main objective of this study was to understand knowledge sharing between participants in a virtual community of practice of caregivers of people with Alzheimer's.
methodsThe authors designed their own mobile application, and two virtual communities of practice were created independently and differentiated by how they were moderated: one by an expert caregiver and the other by three health professionals. 38 caregivers and four moderators were involved in the study, which ran between July 2017 and April 2018. A total of 1925 messages were exchanged within the two communities and used as data in the study. Message data was analysed using LINKS (Leveraging Internet Networks for knowledge sharing).
resultsParticipants were more motivated to acquire knowledge related to caring for the person with Alzheimer's rather than caring for themselves. The purpose of the messages was to inform others about the sender and not to seek answers. It seems that the interaction was more to socialise and to feel heard, than to gain information. Face to face meetings appear to have accelerated community development. On nearly every parameter, behaviour was significantly different in the two communities, reflecting the importance of the character of the moderator. Caring for oneself was a much stronger theme in the community that included health professionals. Experiential knowledge sharing was particularly strong in the group led by a caregiver. DISCUSSION: Caregivers adapted the virtual community of practice to their own needs and mainly shared social knowledge. This focus on social support, which seems to be more valued by the caregivers than information about the disease, was not an expected pattern. Virtual communities of practice where peers count on each other, function more as a support group, whereas those moderated by health professionals function more as a place to go to acquire information. The level of interactivity points to such communities being important for knowledge sharing not mere knowledge transfer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.