Cited by 101Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityDiabetes Management and EducationTechnology Use by Older Adults

The diabetes online community: Older adults supporting self-care through peer health

Litchman, Michelle L., Rothwell, Erin, Edelman, Linda S.·2018·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective The use of the diabetes online community (DOC) is growing across all age groups. The aim of this exploratory study was to describe why older adults participated in the DOC, and how DOC users interacted with their healthcare providers.Methods Telephone interviews (N=20) were conducted with older adult DOC users (born between 1946 and 1964) living in the United States. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis adhering to rigor and reproducibility standards.Results Themes that emerged from the data related to DOC participation included: information to improve self-care, emotional support, belonging to a community, validation of information, cause for concern and interaction with healthcare providers. Participants used the DOC for day to day diabetes management advice and healthcare providers for medical information and care.Conclusion Participants highly valued the DOC and regarded their participation as a way to increase knowledge to improve self-care and reciprocate emotional support with others for diabetes management. The DOC filled gaps in knowledge and support participants were not able to get elsewhere.Practice implications The DOC serves as an important source of information and support for individuals with diabetes and may be a cost-effective strategy to augment standard diabetes care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.023

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Litchman, M. L., Rothwell, E., & Edelman, L. S.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Litchman, Michelle L.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
518-523
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2751395894
Cited by
101
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 5
FWCI
17.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
older adults, peer support, diabetes self-care, emotional support, online health communities, patient-provider interaction, diabetes management, data validation, sense of belonging
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Peer Group, Self Care, Social Support, Telephone, Telemedicine, Internet, Qualitative Research, Social Media

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