Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Bond, Carol S.; Ahmed, Osman H. (2016)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Background Peer-to-peer healthcare is increasing, especially amongst people living with a long-term condition. How information is shared is, however, sometimes of concern to healthcare professionals. Objective This study explored what information is being shared on health-related discussion boards and identified the approaches people used to signpost their peers to information. Methods This study was conducted using a qualitative content analysis methodology to explore information shared on discussion boards for people living with diabetes. Whilst there is debate about the best ethical lens to view research carried out on data posted on online discussion boards, the researchers chose to adopt the stance of treating this type of information as “personal health text”, a specific type of research data in its own right. Results Qualitative content analysis and basic descriptive statistics were used to analyse the selected posts. Two major themes were identified: ‘Information Sharing from Experience’ and ‘Signposting Other Sources of Information’. Conclusions People were actively engaging in information sharing in online discussion forums, mainly through direct signposting. The quality of the information shared was important, with reasons for recommendations being given. Much of the information sharing was based on experience, which also brought in information from external sources such as healthcare professionals and other acknowledged experts in the field. With the rise in peer-to-peer support networks, the nature of health knowledge and expertise needs to be redefined. People online are combining external information with their own personal experiences and sharing that for others to take and develop as they wish.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Project PRI. Health Fact Sheet 2014. Available from: http:// www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/health-fact-sheet/.
    • 2. Fox S. Peer-to-peer healthcare: Crazy. Crazy. Crazy. Obvious. 2011. Available from: http://e-patients.net/ archives/2011/05/peer-to-peer-healthcare-crazy-crazy-crazyobvious.html.
    • 3. Fox S. Peer-to-peer healthcare. Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2011.
    • 4. Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M and Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the Internet. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 2002;287(21): 2869-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2869.
    • 5. Armstrong N and Powell J. Patient perspectives on health advice posted on Internet discussion boards: a qualitative study. Health Expectations: an International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy 2009;12(3):313-20. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00543.x. PMid:19555377.
    • 6. Ahmed O, Sullivan S, Schneiders A and McCrory P. iSupport: do social networking sites have a role to play in concussion awareness? Disability and Rehabilitation 2010;32(22): 1877-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09638281003734409. PMid:20367328.
    • 7. Bender J, Jimenez-Marroquin M and Jadad A. Seeking support on Facebook: a content analysis of breast cancer groups. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2011;13(1):e16. http://dx.doi. org/10.2196/jmir.1560. PMid:21371990 PMCid:PMC3221337.
    • 8. Moorhead A, Hazlett E, Harrison L, Carroll K, Irwin A and Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2013;15(4):e85. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1933. PMid:23615206 PMCid:PMC3636326.
    • 9. Hamm M, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Scott S, Given L et al. Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2013;3(5). http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bmjopen-2013-002819. PMid:23667163 PMCid:PMC3651969.
    • 10. Bond C, Ahmed O and Hind M. Implications for researchmethods whenconductingstudieswiththeusersofonlinehealthcommunities. Computers Informatics, Nursing 2014;32(3):101-4. http://dx.doi. org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000049. PMid:24642856.
    • 11. Wicks P, Massagli M, Frost J, Brownstein C, Okun S and Vaughan T et al. Sharing health data for better outcomes on PatientsLikeMe. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2010; 12(2):e19. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1549. PMid:20542858 PMCid:PMC2956230.
    • 12. Deshpande A and Jadad AR. Trying to measure the quality of health information on the Internet: is it time to move on? Journal of Rheumatology 2009;36(1):1-3. PMid:19208527.
    • 13. Hewitt-Taylor J and Bond S. What E-patients want from the doctor-patient relationship: content analysis of posts on discussion boards. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2012;14(6):e155.
    • 14. Bond CS, Ahmed OH, Hind M, Thomas B and Hewitt-Taylor J. The Conceptual and Practical Ethical Dilemmas of Using Health Discussion Board Posts as Research Data. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2013;15(6):e112. PMid:23748147 PMCid:PMC3713935.
    • 15. Elo S and Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2008;62(1):107-15. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. PMid:18352969.
    • 16. Fox J. Care of chronic conditions. The role of the expert patient in the management of chronic illness. British Journal of Nursing 2005;14(1):25-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/ bjon.2005.14.1.17368. PMid:15750485.
    • 17. Quinn EM, Corrigan MA, McHugh SM, Murphy D, O'Mullane J, Hill AD et al. Who's talking about breast cancer? Analysis of daily breast cancer posts on the internet. The Breast. 2013;22(1):24-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. breast.2012.05.001. PMid:22683246
    • 18. Eysenbach G. Medicine 2.0: social networking, collaboration, participation, apomediation, and openness. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2008;10(3):e22.
    • 19. Tran J, Tran R and White J. Smartphone-based glucose monitors and applications in the management of diabetes: an overview of 10 salient “Apps” and a novel smartphone-connected blood glucose monitor. Clinical Diabetes 2012;30(4):173-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/diaclin.30.4.173.
    • 20. Liang X, Wang Q, Yang X, Cao J, Chen J, Mo X et al. Effect of mobile phone intervention for diabetes on glycaemic control: a meta-analysis. Diabetic Medicine 2011;28(4): 455-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2010.03180.x. PMid:21392066.
    • 21. Chomutare T, Fernandez-Luque L, Årsand E and Hartvigsen G. Features of mobile diabetes applications: review of the literature and analysis of current applications compared against evidence-based guidelines. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2011;13(3):e65.
    • 22. Sudau F, Friede T, Grabowski J, Koschack J, Makedonski P and Himmel W. Sources of Information and Behavioral Patterns in Online Health Forums: Observational Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014;16(1):e10. Available from: http:// wwwjmirorg/2014/1/e10/. 2014.
    • 23. Schaffer R, Kuczynski K and Skinner D. Producing genetic knowledge and citizenship through the Internet: mothers, pediatric genetics, and cybermedicine. Sociology of Health and Illness 2008;30(1):145-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9566.2007.01042.x. PMid:18254838.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article