Cited by 34Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityCancer survivorship and careDigital Mental Health Interventions

Logging On, Reaching Out, and Getting By: A Review of Self-reported Psychosocial Impacts of Online Peer Support for People Impacted by Cancer

Open access
Allison, Kimberley R., Patterson, Pandora, Guilbert, Daniel, Noke, Melissa, Husson, Olga·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

For individuals impacted by their own or a family member's cancer, connecting with other people in similar situations can be an invaluable source of informational and emotional support. Online spaces provide opportunities for peer support that may be more accessible, given the medical and logistical restrictions on face-to-face socialisation associated with cancer and treatment. However, little is known about the impacts of online peer support. This systematic review surveys the literature on psychosocial impacts of online peer support for people impacted by cancer, integrating research from psychology, health, communications, informatics and social computing disciplines. The reviewed papers and interventions vary widely in the type of online peer support provided, who this support was intended for, and how outcomes were evaluated. Quantitative evidence suggests that online peer support may improve psychosocial wellbeing, particularly anxiety and stress, although this appears to depend on how individuals engage and interact with others. Qualitative findings suggest clear value in connecting and sharing experiences with those in similar situations, benefits which may not be well captured quantitatively. For individuals who share experiences, express emotions and feel understood and accepted by others, online peer spaces may be a valuable and viable source of support. However, this require strategic community design and management to build an active and sustainable group dynamic which can effectively and safely support people impacted by cancer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3449169

Cites

152 of 152 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Allison, K. R., Patterson, P., Guilbert, D., Noke, M., & Husson, O.
Affiliations
  • Canteen (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2021-04-13
Volume
5
Issue
CSCW1
Pages
1-35
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3159414414
Cited by
34
References
151
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (VI.Vidi.198.007)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
online peer support, cancer, psychosocial well-being, anxiety, stress, social support, online communities, community design, emotional support, lived experience sharing

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