CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,268Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityMental Health and Patient InvolvementDigital Mental Health Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions

Open access
Eysenbach, Gunther, Powell, John, Englesakis, Marina, Rizo, Carlos, Stern, Anita·2004·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1166PMC PMC411092
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compile and evaluate the evidence on the effects on health and social outcomes of computer based peer to peer communities and electronic self support groups, used by people to discuss health related issues remotely. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: Analysis of studies identified from Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Electronics and Communications Abstracts, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, ERIC, LISA, ProQuest Digital Dissertations, Web of Science. SELECTION OF STUDIES: We searched for before and after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies, or studies with control groups; evaluating health or social outcomes of virtual peer to peer communities, either as stand alone interventions or in the context of more complex systems with peer to peer components. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Peer to peer interventions and co-interventions studied, general characteristics of studies, outcome measures used, and study results. RESULTS: 45 publications describing 38 distinct studies met our inclusion criteria: 20 randomised trials, three meta-analyses of n of 1 trials, three non-randomised controlled trials, one cohort study, and 11 before and after studies. Only six of these evaluated "pure" peer to peer communities, and one had a factorial design with a "peer to peer only" arm, whereas 31 studies evaluated complex interventions, which often included psychoeducational programmes or one to one communication with healthcare professionals, making it impossible to attribute intervention effects to the peer to peer community component. The outcomes measured most often were depression and social support measures; most studies did not show an effect. We found no evidence to support concerns over virtual communities harming people. CONCLUSIONS: No robust evidence exists of consumer led peer to peer communities, partly because most peer to peer communities have been evaluated only in conjunction with more complex interventions or involvement with health professionals. Given the abundance of unmoderated peer to peer groups on the internet, research is required to evaluate under which conditions and for whom electronic support groups are effective and how effectiveness in delivering social support electronically can be maximised.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1166

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Hamman CJ . Effect of a nurse-managed support group via an internet bulletin board on the perception of social support among adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus [dissertation]. Texas Tech University, 2000: 1–102.
  2. Quick, Ben Gordon . The role of support groups on the Internet for those suffering from chronic kidney disease [dissertation]. University of the Pacific, 1999: 1–128.
  3. Houghton, 2001, What questions do patients ask in a cardiology newsgroup and how reliable are the answers?, Br J Cardiol, 8, 165
  4. Golant, 2003, Discussions about suicide in internet delivered cancer support groups., Psychooncology, 12, S96

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Englesakis, M., Rizo, C., & Stern, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • University Health Network (CA)
ORCID
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2004-05-13
Volume
328
Issue
7449
Pages
1166
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1166
PMC
PMC411092
OpenAlex
W2170722669
Cited by
1,268
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 99 · 2015: 85 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 87 · 2012: 67
FWCI
7.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
online communities, online support groups, peer interaction, online intervention, social support, depression, health outcomes, complex interventions, psychoeducational programme, provider communication, online health communities
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Delivery of Health Care, Health Education, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Patient Participation, Peer Group, Self-Help Groups, Social Support, Cohort Studies, Program Evaluation, Health Behavior, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, 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