Cited by 24Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health EducationSocial Media and Politics

Facebook Support Groups for Pediatric Rare Diseases: Cross-Sectional Study to Investigate Opportunities, Limitations, and Privacy Concerns

Open access
Titgemeyer, Sarah Catrin, Schaaf, Christian P·2022·JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Because of the nature of rare diseases with affected individuals being widely geographically dispersed, finding an in-person/offline support group itself can be a challenge. Affected individuals therefore turn to social networking platforms such as Facebook for online support groups. Objective: We aim to put into perspective the opportunities Facebook offers as a tool for pediatric rare disease support groups by investigating its use, advantages, and limitations including privacy concerns. We analyze group accessibility and usage, advantages specific to rare diseases, perceived privacy, and views on using Facebook for communication between health professionals and parents, pharmaceutical companies, and study recruitment. Methods: We contacted 12 Facebook support groups for 12 respective rare diseases with pediatric onset and invited group members to participate in a cross-sectional online survey. Results: Of 231 respondents, 87.0% (n=201) of respondents were female, 12.6% (n=29) were male, and 0.4% reported another sex (n=1). Respondents’ mean age was 41.56 years (SD 9.375); 91.3% (n=211) of respondents were parents (183 mothers, 27 fathers, 1 other sex); 59.7% (n=138) reported a self-initiated search for the Facebook group, 24.2% (n=56) received recommendations from their health professionals, and 12.6% (n=29) recommendations from someone else affected by the disease. On average, support group members visited Facebook at least once a day, visited and passively participated (read/liked posts) several times a week, and participated actively (commented/posted) once a month. As much as 79.2% (183/231) agreed that they would like to have health professionals as members of the respective Facebook group. Group members expressed more concern about privacy issues on Facebook in general than in their respective Facebook support groups, with concerns mostly related to Facebook itself and nongroup members. Conclusions: Our study confirmed that Facebook enhances support group accessibility for parents of children with rare diseases. Group participants perceive a reduction and elimination of distance, a common challenge in rare disease, and Facebook support groups create an environment of perceived privacy. The group’s privacy setting can be a critical factor for active support group participation. Sharing personal information and pictures on Facebook is very common among group participants, which shows the importance of discussing and protecting children’s privacy rights in this context. Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016067; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016067

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 · 10.2196/31411

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Most participants in two studies visited online support groups at least once per day.

    “Two studies [16,18] reported that most participants visited online support groups at least once per day.”

    From Social Media Use Among Parents and Caregivers of Children With Rare Genetic Diseases: Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [18]

    Table 2 in Results > Accessibility and Group Usage reports that 89 of 231 participants (38.5%) visited the Facebook support group at least once a day—not most participants. The daily majority (75.8%) refers to Facebook use overall, rather than visits to the support group. This verdict concerns only the cited source, not the other study in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • One included study was at higher risk of bias because there was no clear explanation for how recruitment platforms were selected.

    “One study was identified as being at higher risk of bias, as there was no clear explanation for how the recruitment platforms were selected [18].”

    From Social Media Use Among Parents and Caregivers of Children With Rare Genetic Diseases: Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Methods section says the study contacted 12 Facebook groups, and the Discussion’s Study Strengths and Limitations section questions representativeness and notes possible response/selection bias. The paper does not itself rate the study as higher risk of bias or identify an unclear explanation for choosing the recruitment groups as the reason; that appears to be the citing authors’ assessment. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Improved caregiver knowledge from engagement in social media groups led to reduced stress.

    “One study [18] reported that improved caregiver knowledge as a result of engagement in social media groups led to reduced stress.”

    From Social Media Use Among Parents and Caregivers of Children With Rare Genetic Diseases: Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Discussion’s “Informational Support” section says group members use Facebook to find medical information and that increased knowledge can reduce stress related to parental incompetence. It does not report that engagement improved caregivers’ knowledge or that this led to an observed reduction in stress; the claim presents a possibility as a measured outcome. Page numbers are not available in the supplied copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Parents felt the presence of a health care provider in social media groups could reduce misinformation.

    “Two studies [18,21] noted that parents felt the presence of a health care provider in social media groups could reduce misinformation.”

    From Social Media Use Among Parents and Caregivers of Children With Rare Genetic Diseases: Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results section on communication with health professionals reports that 79.2% of respondents wanted health professionals as members of their Facebook support groups. It does not report that parents thought their presence would reduce misinformation; searches for misinformation and information accuracy found no such finding. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Health care providers do not routinely recommend online support to parents; less than 25% were directed to Facebook groups by clinicians compared to 60% who self-initiated searches.

    “However, 1 study [18] mentioned that health care providers do not routinely recommend online support to parents, stating that less than 25% were directed to Facebook groups by their clinicians compared to 60% who self-initiated searches for online groups.”

    From Social Media Use Among Parents and Caregivers of Children With Rare Genetic Diseases: Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results (Overview) report that 24.2% of respondents received a recommendation from a health professional and 59.7% found the group through a self-initiated search, matching the figures in the claim. However, the Discussion (Using Facebook for Communication With Health Professionals) says that recommending a Facebook group “appears to be common practice,” contrary to the claim that providers do not routinely recommend one. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 24

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. [3]Pelentsov LJ Fielder AL Esterman AJ The Supportive Care Needs of Parents With a Child With a Rare Disease: A Qualitative Descriptive Study J Pediatr Nurs 2016 31 3 e207 18 10.1016/j.pedn.2015.10.022 26651231 S0882-5963(15)00355-3 26651231 · DOI
  2. [4]Delisle VC Gumuchian ST Rice DB Levis AW Kloda LA Körner Annett Thombs BD Perceived Benefits and Factors that Influence the Ability to Establish and Maintain Patient Support Groups in Rare Diseases: A Scoping Review Patient 2017 06 10 3 283 293 10.1007/s40271-016-0213-9 28004275 10.1007/s40271-016-0213-9 28004275 · DOI
  3. [8]Facebook Inc Facebook Reports Second Quarter 2019 Results 2019 2021-12-25 https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2019/Facebook-Reports-Second-Quarter-2019-Results/default.aspx
  4. [9]Titgemeyer SC Schaaf CP Facebook Support Groups for Rare Pediatric Diseases: Quantitative Analysis JMIR Pediatr Parent 2020 11 19 3 2 e21694 10.2196/21694 33211019 v3i2e21694 33211019 PMC7714646 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [10]White M Dorman SM Receiving social support online: implications for health education Health Educ Res 2001 12 16 6 693 707 10.1093/her/16.6.693 11780708 11780708 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [12]Househ M Sharing sensitive personal health information through Facebook: the unintended consequences Stud Health Technol Inform 2011 169 616 20 21893822 21893822
  7. [13]Steinberg S Sharenting: Children's Privacy in the Age of Social Media Emory Law Journal 2017 66 839 839
  8. [14]Allmer T Critical Internet Privacy Studies FC 2013 10 1 71 80 10.32855/fcapital.201301.007 · DOI
  9. [15]Tavani HT Philosophical Theories of Privacy: Implications for an adequate online privacy policy Metaphilosophy 2007 01 38 1 1 22 10.1111/j.1467-9973.2006.00474.x · DOI
  10. [16]Fuchs C An Alternative View of Privacy on Facebook Information 2011 02 09 2 1 140 165 10.3390/info2010140 · DOI
  11. [19]Davies W Insights into rare diseases from social media surveys Orphanet J Rare Dis 2016 11 09 11 1 151 10.1186/s13023-016-0532-x 27829465 10.1186/s13023-016-0532-x 27829465 PMC5103451 · DOI
  12. [20]Milne C Ni W The Use of Social Media in Orphan Drug Development Clin Ther 2017 11 39 11 2173 2180 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.08.016 28942336 S0149-2918(17)30905-0 28942336 · DOI
  13. [21]Schumacher KR Stringer KA Donohue JE Yu S Shaver A Caruthers RL Zikmund-Fisher BJ Fifer C Goldberg C Russell MW Social media methods for studying rare diseases Pediatrics 2014 05 133 5 e1345 53 10.1542/peds.2013-2966 24733869 peds.2013-2966 24733869 PMC4006435 · DOI
  14. [22]Stock NM Martindale A Cunniffe C VTCT Foundation Research Team at the Centre for Appearance Research #CleftProud: A Content Analysis and Online Survey of 2 Cleft Lip and Palate Facebook Groups Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018 11 55 10 1339 1349 10.1177/1055665618764737 29570382 29570382 · DOI
  15. [23]Wittmeier K Holland C Hobbs-Murison K Crawford E Beauchamp C Milne B Morris M Keijzer R Analysis of a parent-initiated social media campaign for Hirschsprung's disease J Med Internet Res 2014 12 11 16 12 e288 10.2196/jmir.3200 25499427 v16i12e288 25499427 PMC4275490 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [24]Mohd Roffeei Siti Hajar Abdullah N Basar SKR Seeking social support on Facebook for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) Int J Med Inform 2015 05 84 5 375 85 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.01.015 25701266 S1386-5056(15)00031-3 25701266 · DOI
  17. [25]Mandell DS Salzer MS Who joins support groups among parents of children with autism? Autism 2007 03 11 2 111 22 10.1177/1362361307077506 17353212 11/2/111 17353212 PMC2861432 · DOI
  18. [27]Dellve L Samuelsson L Tallborn A Fasth A Hallberg LR Stress and well-being among parents of children with rare diseases: a prospective intervention study J Adv Nurs 2006 02 53 4 392 402 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03736.x 16448482 JAN3736 16448482 · DOI

Authors
Titgemeyer, S. C., & Schaaf, C. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Cologne (DE)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Schaaf, Christian P
Venue
JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
Published
2022-01-06
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
e31411
ISSN
2561-6722 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3205056274
Cited by
24
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Universität zu Köln
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
Facebook, online support groups, pediatric rare diseases, social networking, privacy concerns, parents of children with rare diseases, participant recruitment, social distance, children's privacy, social media use, pharmaceutical companies, health data sharing, perceived benefits and barriers

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