ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2026
Online peer support in rheumatology: a mixed methods exploration of patient and clinician views and experiences.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOnline peer support groups (OSGs) are increasingly used by patients with rheumatic diseases, yet their benefits, risks and impact on the clinician-patient relationship are not well characterized. We examined how patients and clinicians perceive and experience OSGs.
methodsMixed methods combining online surveys and interviews with rheumatology patients and clinicians. Measures of satisfaction with life and care were compared by t-tests between OSG members and non-members. Free-text and interview data underwent thematic analysis.
resultsThree themes were identified from surveys (n = 1316 patients, n = 317 clinicians) and interviews (n = 19 patients, n = 14 clinicians). (1) Validation and affirmation: OSGs provided emotional reassurance, understanding and belonging, especially those with rare or 'invisible' diseases who felt disbelieved by others. (2) Patient empowerment through health literacy: OSGs filled informational and relational gaps left by time-limited healthcare systems, offering practical, experience-based advice. Although 85% of patients reported finding helpful information on OSGs, 48% reported misinformation circulating in groups. Effective moderation was viewed as key. (3) Tensions and inequities within peer spaces: 71% of clinicians viewed OSGs as helpful, while many worried about negativity and distrust in healthcare systems. Members described 'toxic positivity', 'toxic negativity' and exclusionary dynamics within the OSGs, with younger, male and racially minoritized patients more likely to report feeling unwelcome.
conclusionOSGs can offer meaningful emotional and practical benefits to patients with rheumatic diseases, particularly those who feel marginalized in social or clinical contexts. However, these benefits coexist with challenges around misinformation, inclusivity and the clinician-patient relationship.
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.