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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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 [58]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Online health communities (OHCs)—Internet-based discussion forums where individuals converse with one another about health topics—are the most robust social media sources for peer-generated health information.[9–12]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“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 [58]
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
Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.9.1017 · Cited by 4,793
Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. (2001) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103 · Cited by 1,027
Self-citationThe quality of online social relationships
Cummings, J. N., Butler, B. S., & Kraut, R. E. (2002) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/514236.514242 · Cited by 580
The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes.
Eysenbach, G. (2003) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.53.6.356 · Cited by 573
Self-citationAn Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network
Wellman, B., Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Kiesler (1997) · Cited by 492
Impact of a patient-centered, computer-based health information/support system
Gustafson, D. (1999) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00108-1 · Cited by 461
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Educational and Behavioral Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes
Gary‐Webb, T. L., Genkinger, J. M., Güallar, E., Peyrot, M. F., & Brancati, F. L. (2003) · The Science of Diabetes Self-Management and Care · doi:10.1177/014572170302900313 · Cited by 372
The Diabetes Network Internet-Based Physical Activity Intervention
McKay, H. G., King, D., Eakin, E. G., Seeley, J. R., & Glasgow, R. E. (2001) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.24.8.1328 · Cited by 363
Internet Support Groups for Depression: A 1-Year Prospective Cohort Study
Houston, T. K., Cooper, L. A., & Ford, D. E. (2002) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.159.12.2062 · Cited by 307
Electronic support groups for breast carcinoma
Lieberman, M. A., Golant, M., Giese‐Davis, J., Winzlenberg, A., Benjamin, H., Humphreys, K. N., Kronenwetter, C., Russo, S., & Spiegel, D. (2003) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.11145 · Cited by 274
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 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.
- 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.
- Houghton, 2001, What questions do patients ask in a cardiology newsgroup and how reliable are the answers?, Br J Cardiol, 8, 165
- Golant, 2003, Discussions about suicide in internet delivered cancer support groups., Psychooncology, 12, S96
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?
Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J., Maskrey, N., & for the Evidence Based Medicine Renaissance Group (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g3725 · Cited by 1,921
Hesse, B. W., Nelson, D. E., Kreps, G. L., Croyle, R. T., Arora, N. K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618 · Cited by 1,523
COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies
Beaunoyer, E., Dupéré, S., & Guitton, M. J. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424 · Cited by 1,114
Griffiths, F., Lindenmeyer, A., Powell, J., Lowe, P., & Thorogood, M. (2006) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8.2.e10 · Cited by 820
Self-citationMental Health Discourse on reddit: Self-Disclosure, Social Support, and Anonymity
De Choudhury, M., & De, S. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14526 · Cited by 836
Metadata
- Authors
- Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Englesakis, M., Rizo, C., & Stern, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Southampton (GB)
- University Health Network (CA)
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-05-13
- Volume
- 328
- Issue
- 7449
- Pages
- 1166
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
