Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1166 (Published 13 May 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:1166All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I thank Barak and colleagues for his letter, which echoes many of the
problems with quantitative studies we pointed out in the review. Contrary
to what the letter suggests: I am not dismissing virtual p2p groups as
ineffective – in fact, in this and other papers I made clear that I
personally believe that p2p groups are perhaps the single most important
aspect of the Internet with the largest impact on health [1]. The
systematic review was designed to answer the question whether we have
evidence for this beyond testimonials.
Barak criticizes our “rigorous and unwarranted inclusion criteria”.
Rigor is hardly a negative term in the context of a systematic review,
especially in a field that is dominated by narrative reviews without any
clear inclusion criteria, or editorials and viewpoint papers of self-help
advocates selectively citing studies that seem to support their own biases
or promote their books or websites on Internet based self-help.
Barak argues that our inclusion criteria are “unwarranted” because they
don’t take into account “combinations of online support and the use of
other help resources”. This is wrong – our inclusion criteria did cover
“combination studies” where online support was a co-intervention (we found
32 of those). Still, the majority of these researchers failed to show an
effect.
In order to support the claim that a “combination is most desirable” Barak
cites the study by Cummings [2] which was a cross-sectional survey among a
sample of p2p participants. Such surveys were in fact _not_ included in
our systematic review, because cross-sectional surveys tend to be biased
(self-selection bias, volunteer effect) and cross-sectional surveys (where
one group of participants reports more benefits from online support groups
than another group) raises questions of causality: an association of two
variables is not causality.
We actually think that the scope of our review was very
comprehensive, as we transcended traditional systematic reviews which
focus on RCTs, by including all kind of comparative or longitudinal study
designs, includigng before-after, interrupted times series, cohort
studies, and non-randomized controlled trials. We also systematically
extracted qualitative information (see online tables).
We do not doubt that surveys and qualitative/ethnographic studies add
information and can inform the development of guidelines, but they were
simply not in the scope of this review, which focused on effectiveness
measures and aimed to highlight some of the problems in measuring hard
outcomes beyond sampling opinions and testimonials.
As Gustafson & Wyatt mentioned in their editorial [3],
testimonials, website hits (and – one may add – biased surveys of a self-
selected subgroup of users) may not be enough to evaluate ehealth
interventions.
In the second part of their criticism, Barak and colleagues seem to
contradict themselves several times. On one hand they seem to accuse the
researchers of the 45 studies we analyzed as being “paternalistic” for
addressing questions on effectiveness in the first place, and seem to
suggest that “professionals are not responsible for maximizing or
delivering benefits in a self-help system“. On the other hand they put
together guidelines for patients themselves, and they recognize that self-
help does not exist in a vacuum.
While we also believe that some or most virtual p2p interventions may
work equally well or better without a health professional, we do think
that it is the responsibility of health professionals to understand and
research these systems. As Barak said it himself, “self-help does not
appear in a vacuum, and must be complemented by other systems of help”,
and we need to understand self-help for exactly this reason. We think that
– even if one agrees that self-help should be left to laypersons without
any involvement of professionals or health service researchers -, it is a
legitimate question and a legitimate call to arms for further research, to
evaluate how the ideal self-help system should look like, for whom and
under what circumstances it is beneficial, and what (if anything)
professional systems can do to complement them or help people to help
themselves.
In addition, as increasingly professionally led systems with p2p
components are designed, such as web-based personal health records or
support systems e.g. CHESS, it is legitimate and necessary to ask how
these components should be designed in order to maximise benefits and
reduce harm. Researching these systems does not automatically mean that
professionals should become directly involved (i.e. moderate the
communities), but at a minimum professionals need an understanding and
awareness of the benefits and limitations of such systems and how they fit
into the professionally led system. This includes questions such as under
which conditions and for whom virtual self-help mechanisms work best,
whether and for whom moderated communities are more helpful than
unmoderated groups, or for whom face-to-face groups are more efficient
than virtual groups.
The paternalism argument against researching the conditions of self-
help groups is also ironic in the light that Barak and colleagues have
developed guidelines for consumers on using self-help groups. If we agree
that guidelines in principle are useful, shouldn’t these guidelines be
based on solid research? Don't we agree that the current "guidelines"
cited by the letter authors are quite coarse and leave many questions
open? Putting together evidence for guidelines is hardly paternalistic. I
agree that research does not only mean quantitative, but also qualitative
research, but again, reviewing and reporting the vast body of qualitative
research or putting together research-based guidelines was not within the
scope of this particular paper, which may however serve as a useful
starting point for future research such as doing a comprehensive
qualitative review project and/or to compile evidence-based guidelines.
References
1) Eysenbach G. The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes. CA
Cancer J Clin 2003;53: 356-71.
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/356?ijkey=255e...
2) Cummings, J. N., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. B. (2002). Beyond
hearing: Where the real-world and online support meet. Group Dynamics, 6,
78-88.
http://homenet.hcii.cs.cmu.edu/progress/beyondhearing.pdf
3)David H Gustafson, Jeremy C Wyatt. Evaluation of ehealth systems
and services. BMJ 2004;328:1150
Competing interests:
No competing interests. This includes that I do not publish any books on self-help, run no self-help websites, and earn no money with professional online mental health.
Competing interests: No competing interests
We commend Eysenbach and his associates for their intensive
investment in searching, collecting, screening, and investigating studies
on Internet peer-to-peer support groups. These online communities have
become a common source of emotional support for millions of people in
distress. The authors' exhaustive search and careful analysis have been
badly needed, and warrant appreciation from the scientific and clinical
community.
In some ways we are troubled, however, by the rigorous and
unwarranted inclusion criteria used by these authors. For their analysis,
Eysenbach et al. made a careful attempt to include only well-designed
research studies that utilized specific experimental methodology. This
approach, in their view, enabled valid assessment of the sole, incremental
effects of peer-to-peer support. In our view, the authors have isolated
online support intervention effects from reality. Emotional support is not
provided in a vacuum. Online support—by all common theories, methods, and
applications—is most commonly offered to people as an adjunct to other
available resources. Actually, supported by empirical research, a
combination of online support and the use of other help resources is
considered most desirable (e.g., Cummings, Sproull, & Kiesler, 2002).
We strongly believe that online emotional support may be an effective
means of relief, but not as an isolated remedy. Although full control of
variables is commonplace among experimental psychologists (for good
methodological reasons in executing pure experimental designs), it is far
less important in research that seeks to investigate the psychosocial
effects upon real people in distress in their natural social environment.
Secondly, although clinicians and scientists strive at obtaining
reliable evidence, we question whether certain types of quantitative
research on Internet peer support groups are desired, needed, or even
possible. Eysenbach and associates wrote: "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… (p.1166).” However, as we see it, research of online peer-to-
peer support groups by professionals is rather paternalistic, and it
completely misses the point that the Internet environment is viewed by its
users as a self-empowering medium. Users do not necessarily want, or need,
professional researchers present in peer-to-peer support groups, which are
run by ordinary people for ordinary people. Many of these groups thrive
precisely because there are no professionals in them. Moreover, we
question whether researchers can truly “evaluate under which conditions
and for whom (p. 1170)” online groups are effective given the inherent
nature of these groups, characterized by minimal control, open-door
approach, and unidentifiability (e.g., Wright & Bell, 2003). Eysenbach
et al. also stated that research is needed on “how effectiveness in
delivering social support electronically can be maximised (p. 1166)" but
disregarded the given non-paternalistic, self-help nature of these groups.
The problematic attributions made by Eysenbach et al. make the premise of
their analysis shaky, perhaps unjustified. Moreover, we argue that
professionals are not responsible for maximizing or delivering benefits in
a self-help system and ought to practice appropriate boundaries. The
online peer-to-peer support group environment would apparently benefit the
most by nurturing, respect, and privacy, rather than intrusive external
interventions in an emotionally vulnerable setting. Thus, qualitatively-
oriented and ethnographic methodologies (Hine, 2000) seem to better fit
this special area of research in cyberspace.
Members and leaders of online groups could, however, benefit from
guidelines derived from extensive field experience. Published indicators
of quality would help them educate themselves on factors that might
improve their online peer-support experiences and minimize their risk.
Examples of such guidelines are provided by Grohol (2001), Madara (2004),
and Pector (2004). These resources, as well as other writings on online
support groups which based on experience and appropriate research (e.g.,
Alexander, Peterson, & Hollingshead, 2003; Lieberman & Russo, 2001
-2002; Till, 2003), note that the tone of interaction depends on the
quality of moderation by either naturally emerging leaders or professional
moderators. Most of the studies in Eysenbach et al.’s review, however,
involved professional moderation, whereas the vast majority of Internet
groups are unmoderated. Indeed, the rapid disclosure of intimate personal
details fostered by the online disinhibition effect (Suler, 2004) may
leave participants vulnerable to deception, coercion, anger, and criticism
that can arise in unmoderated groups. We believe a review of existing
qualitative and quantitative studies would offer valuable advice to self-
help communities on how best to create a positive, healing environment and
avoid abuse.
Numerous systematic and nonsystematic observations—and our own
clinical experiences—reveal that online support groups provide much relief
to people who struggle with a variety of mental- and health-related
difficulties. Most of these people do use other resources of variable
quality, from personal therapy, to medications, to support by family, to
worship, to use of amulets, to escape into drugs or gambling. An
investigation that aspires to closely study effects of online support
should not ignore or adjust for these other resources, but should
integrate them into the research design. This results in ecological
validity, documenting the extent to which the conditions under
investigation reflect real life and natural circumstances. Contrary to
Eysenbach et al., we believe that interaction effects of participation in
online support groups and other sources of help have significant impact
and should be included in systematic analyses. Lastly, we encourage
thoughtful methodical reviews of qualitative research already conducted on
online groups. Qualitative studies have described characteristics of those
who use such groups, the process by which self-help occurs, perceived
benefits, potential risks, and the types of individuals that may be helped
or harmed by online support communities. Such information, in addition to
appropriately- and specifically-designed quantitative studies, will help
health professionals intelligently advise patients who use online support
resources.
References
Alexander, S. C., Peterson, J. L., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2003).
Help is at your keyboard: Support groups on the Internet. In L. R. Frey
(Ed.), Group Communication in Context: Studies of Bona Fide Groups (pp.
309-334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cummings, J. N., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. B. (2002). Beyond
hearing: Where the real-world and online support meet. Group Dynamics, 6,
78-88.
Grohol, J. (2001). What to look for in quality online support groups.
Retrieved on May 16, 2004, from:
http://psychcentral.com/archives/support_groups.htm
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London, UK: Sage.
Madara, E. (2004). How to develop an online support group or Web
site. Retrieved on May 16, 2004, from:
http://mentalhelp.net/selfhelp/selfhelp.php?id=863
Azy Barak
Pector, E. (2004). Internet support networks: Suggestions for a safe
& sound experience. Retrieved on May 16, 2004, from:
http://www.synspectrum.com/support.html
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Retrieved on May
16, 2004, from: http://www.rider.edu/suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html
Till, J. E. (2003). Evaluation of support groups for women with breast
cancer: importance of the navigator role. Health and Quality of Life
Outcomes, 1, (16). Retrieved on May 16, 2004, from:
http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/16.
Wright, K. B., Bell, S. B. (2003). Health-related support groups on the
Internet: Linking empirical findings to social support and computer-
mediated communication theory. Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 39-54.
Azy Barak, Ph.D.
Fellow, International Society for Mental Health Online
Departments of Psychology and Education,
University of Haiha,
Haifa 31905, Israel
azy@construct.haifa.ac.il
John M. Grohol, Psy.D.
Fellow, International Society for Mental Health Online
39 Colby St.
Bradford, MA 01835
john@grohol.com
Elizabeth Pector, M.D.
1220 Hobson Road, Suite 216,
Spectrum Family Medicine,
Naperville, IL 60540
synspectrum@yahoo.com
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The variety of internet support groups for those affected by cancer
Eysenbach et al reveal the lack of research into electronic support
groups (ESGs) despite the large number of groups in operation. They note
that Yahoo!Groups, a major provider, lists almost 25,000 support groups
[1]. With little even known about what groups exist, we carried out an
audit of cancer-related groups at Yahoo!Groups in 2002.
Searching with cancer-related terms, we identified 1164 English-
language groups relevant to cancer patients/carers. However, 748 were
inactive (defined as <5 messages in the first quarter of 2002) and most
of those had never been active. Of the remainder, 74 were about
fundraising rather than support groups. With further exclusions, we
identified 309 active discussion groups for support/information around the
experience or treatment of cancer or cancer sequelae. On similar
percentages, this suggests the figure of almost 25,000 in the paper by
Eysenbach et al for Yahoo!Groups across all conditions is misleading and
represents perhaps only 7000 active support groups [1].
That said, Yahoo!Groups is only one provider of ESGs. Given their
nature, it is impossible to produce a complete list or total number of
ESGs and estimates vary widely. For example, various resources offer lists
of cancer-related ESGs, notably the Association of Cancer Online Resources
<http://www.acor.org/index.html> with 132 groups. The National
Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations
<http://www.nabco.org/index.php/index.php/353> lists 100 groups,
most specific to breast cancer. However, there was only minimal overlap
between these two lists and our results, suggesting over 1000 English-
language, cancer-related groups could exist.
The diversity of ESGs is also very important. Although research has
concentrated on ESGs for breast cancer [1, 2], we found 58 different
cancer types represented. Many groups are very specific in their coverage:
being for rarer cancers (e.g. chondrosarcoma, mycosis fungoides), specific
stages or treatments of more common cancers (e.g. advanced thyroid cancer,
hormonal ablation for prostate cancer), specific groups with cancer (e.g.
Muslims, teenagers), or specific groups with certain cancers (e.g. war
veterans with prostate cancer, lesbians with breast cancer). Of the 309
groups identified, 89 were not specific to cancer, but were of relevance
to cancer patients/carers (e.g. chronic pain, bereavement). Overall, the
median number of subscribed addresses (which over-estimates active
participants) was 48 (interquartile range, 22-134).
References
1. Eysenbach G, Powell J, Englesakis M, Rizo C, Stern A. Health
related virtual communities and electronic support groups: systematic
review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. BMJ
2004;328:1166-.
2. Klemm P, Bunnell D, Cullen M, Soneji R, Gibbons P, Holecek A.
Online cancer support groups: a review of the literature. Computers,
Informatics, Nursing 2003;21:136-142.
Henry W W Potts, lecturer in health informatics, Centre for Health
Informatics and Multiprofessional Education (CHIME), University College
London, Holborn Union Building, Highgate Hill, London N19 5LW; e-mail
<h.potts@chime.ucl.ac.uk>
Amanda J Ramirez, professor of liaison psychiatry, Cancer Research UK
London Psychosocial Group, Institute of Psychiatry/King’s College, London,
Adamson Centre for Mental Health, St Thomas’ Hospital, London SE1 7EH
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests