| Title |
Navigating cancer using online communities: a grounded theory of survivor and family experiences
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cancer Survivorship, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11764-017-0616-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lydia Jo Harkin, Kinta Beaver, Paola Dey, Kartina Choong |
| Abstract |
People affected by cancer often have unmet emotional and social support needs. Online cancer communities are a convenient channel for connecting cancer survivors, allowing them to support one another. However, it is unclear whether online community use makes a meaningful contribution to cancer survivorship, as little previous research has examined the experience of using contemporary cancer communities. We aimed to explore the experiences of visitors to online cancer communities. Twenty-three in-depth interviews were conducted with online cancer community visitors, including cancer survivors (n = 18), family members (n = 2), and individuals who were both a survivor and family member (n = 3). Interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach. A theory developed explaining how individuals 'navigated' the experience of cancer using online cancer communities. Online advice and information led participants on a 'journey to become informed'. Online friendships normalised survivorship and cast participants on a 'journey to recreate identity'. Participants navigated a 'journey through different worlds' as they discovered relevant and hidden communities. This theory highlights virtual paths people affected by cancer can take to self-manage their experience of the disease. Online community experiences can be improved by promoting online evaluation skills and signposting visitors to bereavement support. Cancer survivors can benefit through both lurking and posting in online communities. However, individuals risk becoming distressed when they befriend individuals who may soon die. Additionally, people affected by rarer cancers can struggle to find shared experiences online and may need to look elsewhere for support. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 32 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 11% |
| Psychology | 8 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,274,352
of 25,362,520 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#151
of 1,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,972
of 317,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Survivorship
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.