The diffusion of virtual communities in health care: Concepts and challenges
Abstract
Objective This paper providers an overview and discussion of virtual communities in health care. Furthermore, we aim to discuss in this context ethical, legal and technical considerations and the current status of research in this domain.Methods We searched medical and social science literature including survey studies, randomized and non-randomized controlled interventions and reviews.Results The literature indicates that a virtual community in health care as a group of people using telecommunication with the purposes of delivering health care and education, and/or providing support, covers a wide range of clinical specialties, technologies and stakeholders. Examples include peer-to-peer networks, virtual health care delivery and research teams. Ethical challenges including the concepts of identity and deception, privacy and confidentiality and technical issues, such as sociability and usability are discussed.Conclusion Virtual communities may empower patients and enhance coordination of care services; however, there is not sufficient systematic evidence of the effectiveness of virtual communities on clinical outcomes or patient empowerment. Researchers need to address issues, such as sample sizes and experimental design to further the research field in this domain.Practice implications When practitioners utilize virtual community tools to communicate with patients or colleagues they have to maximize sociability and usability of this mode of communication, while addressing concerns for privacy and the fear of de-humanizing practice, and the lack of clarity or relevance of current legislative frameworks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Authors of systematic reviews in this field have highlighted the paucity of comparative data, making it difficult to draw any robust conclusions about the impact of such interventions.
“Authors of systematic reviews in this field have highlighted the paucity of comparative data, making it difficult to draw any robust conclusions about the impact of such interventions [58-60].”
From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [59]
The research to date has failed to identify evidence of benefit (or harm) to users of online peer-support services.
“Unfortunately, the research to date has failed to identify evidence of benefit (or harm) to users of online peer-support services.”
From Web-Based Interventions for Behavior Change and Self-Management: Potential, Pitfalls, and Progress (2012) · cites this paper as [59]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 249
- Authors
- Demiris, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- Corresponding author
- Demiris, George
- ORCID
- Demiris, George
- Venue
- Patient Education and Counseling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 178-188
- ISSN
- 0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120803554
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 1.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
- Keywords
- online communities, health care, telemedicine, peer-to-peer networks, patient empowerment, privacy and confidentiality, sociability, usability, ethics, legal issues, care coordination, online health support
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Attitude to Health, Communication, Confidentiality, Delivery of Health Care, Diffusion of Innovation, Health Services Accessibility, Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Services Research, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Malpractice, Peer Group, Professional-Patient Relations, Research Design, Social Support, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, User-Computer Interface, Liability, Legal, Computer Security, Telemedicine, Internet
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review