Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42127226›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2026

How Cancer Online Support Groups Work, for Whom, and in What Circumstances: Realist Review.

Jacqueline L Bender, Sarah Scruton, Geoff Wong, Lauren R Squires, Stephanie Babinski, Marina Englesakis, Alaina Cyr, Henry Potts, Andrea Tricco, Richard Wassersug and 8 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Jacqueline L BenderCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada, 1 416-581-8606.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1501-335X
Sarah ScrutonCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada, 1 416-581-8606.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-1260-2043
Geoff WongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5384-4157
Lauren R SquiresCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada, 1 416-581-8606.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6428-4466
Stephanie BabinskiCancer Rehabilitation and Survivorship, Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada, 1 416-581-8606.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5623-8542
Marina EnglesakisLibrary and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2199-1056
Alaina CyrPatient Education and Engagement, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2908-0521
Henry PottsCentre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6200-8804
Andrea TriccoDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4114-8971
Richard WassersugDepartment of Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7028-7615
Mary Jane EsplenDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6034-2235
Victoria J ForsterWomen's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9103-8551
Olga PerskiFaculty of Social Sciences and Herbet Wertheim School of Public Health, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3285-3174
Holly O WittemanFaculté de médicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4192-0682
Charlene SoobiahDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2271-3082
Janet PapadakosDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6320-4156
Colleen YoungHealth Education and Content Services, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, MN, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9377-7868
Colleen FoxOntario Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3807-2646

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Online support groups (OSGs) offer a convenient way for patients with cancer and survivors of cancer to obtain information and support. However, not all OSGs are helpful, and in some cases, they may increase distress. Overall, there is a lack of clear evidence on the effects of OSGs, along with how and why they work. Objective: This study examined how, for whom, and in what contexts OSGs work for patients with cancer and survivors of cancer. Methods: A realist review of the evidence on cancer OSGs was conducted (12 databases, inception to February 15, 2025). We followed Pawson's steps and the RAMESES (Realist and Meta-Narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) quality standards for realist reviews. The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Using a realist logic of analysis, we generated a narrative summary of the findings, context-mechanism-outcome configurations, and a program theory (eg, conceptual framework) to explain how cancer OSGs work. Additionally, we developed evidence-based recommendations for optimizing the effectiveness of OSGs. Results: Of 16,659 papers identified, 168 were included. The evidence was organized into 3 categories, 10 concepts, and 57 context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Cancer OSGs can support patients by providing informational, emotional, appraisal, and altruistic support. This can lead to changes in distress, isolation, empowerment, and self-esteem, through negative and positive appraisals as well as coping efforts. These outcomes, however, depend on user attitudes about OSGs (ie, trustworthy, useful, culturally safe, and easy-to-use), how well the OSG fits their needs (ie, health need, sociodemographic or clinical characteristics, and coping style), and perceptions of control (ie, availability, anonymity, privacy, and autonomy). If an OSG was a good fit for a user's needs, whether they experienced positive outcomes depended on features of the communication technology (ie, modality, response time, and visual social cues), group composition and dynamics (ie, norms, moderation, safety, cohesion, and belonging), and the nature and content of interactions (ie, emotional expression, cognitive processing, and empathetic responses). These factors trigger underlying mechanisms such as feeling understood, accepted, cared for, valued, reassured, informed, and confident, which result in positive outcomes. Conclusions: OSGs can address supportive care needs and improve psychosocial well-being for patients with cancer and survivors of cancer. However, outcomes depend on specific contexts and mechanisms that impact how well OSGs meet patients' needs. To optimize effectiveness of OSGs, we recommend (1) helping to assess fit and address specific needs; (2) demonstrating trustworthiness; (3) enhancing anonymity and control, and protecting privacy; (4) enhancing ease-of-use; (5) supporting connection and belonging; (6) encouraging activity; (7) enhancing the nature of content shared to boost therapeutic effects; and (8) monitoring and adjusting design and management strategies.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsInternetNeoplasmsSelf-Help GroupsHumanscanceronline communityonline support grouprealist reviewsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42127226
PMCPMC13170744

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.