You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The use of an online support group for neuromuscular disorders: a thematic analysis of message postings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Disability & Rehabilitation, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1080/09638288.2017.1334239 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oonagh Meade, Heather Buchanan, Neil Coulson |
| Abstract |
People affected by neuromuscular disorders can experience adverse psychosocial consequences and difficulties accessing information and support. Online support groups provide new opportunities for peer support. The aim of this study was to understand how contributors used the message board function of a newly available neuromuscular disorders online support group. Message postings (n = 1951) from the first five months of the message board of a newly formed online support group for neuromuscular disorders hosted by a charitable organization were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Members created a sense of community through disclosing personal information, connecting with people with similar illness experiences or interests, welcoming others and sharing aspirations for the development of a resourceful community. Experiences, emotional reactions and support were shared in relation to: delayed diagnosis; symptom interpretation; illness management and progression; the isolating impact of rare disorders; and the influence of social and political factors on illness experiences. This study provided a novel insight into individuals' experiences of accessing a newly available online support group for rare conditions hosted by a charitable organization. The findings highlight how the online support group provided an important peer support environment for members to connect with others, exchange information and support and engender discussion on political and social issues unique to living with often-rare neuromuscular disorders. Online support groups may therefore provide an important and easily accessible support outlet for people with neuromuscular disorders as well as a platform for empowering members to raise awareness about the impact of living with these conditions. Further research is needed to examine member motivations for using such groups and any effects of participation in greater detail. Implications for rehabilitation Online support groups may provide a unique forum for information sharing and peer support between people affected by often rare, neuromuscular conditions. Rehabilitation professionals may wish to signpost those affected by neuromuscular disorders to such groups. An advantage is that these groups are freely available and can be accessed from anywhere and at any time. Members may be able to learn about the diagnosis and symptom experiences of others, discuss coping strategies, validate illness experiences and discuss social and political issues relating to living with these conditions. Further research is needed before researchers and clinicians can fully understand participants' motivations for, and experiences of, using such groups and any potential psychosocial benefits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 11 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 9% |
| Psychology | 7 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 31 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Disability & Rehabilitation
#2,359
of 4,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,728
of 331,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Disability & Rehabilitation
#33
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.