Phoenix K H Mo1, Sumaira H Malik, Neil S Coulson. 1. University of Nottingham, Institute of Work, Health and Organisations, International House, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham NG8 1BB, United Kingdom. lwxkhml@nottingham.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has contended that the unique characteristics of the Internet might remove some of the gender differences that exist in face-to-face healthcare. The aims of the present study were to systematically review studies that have examined gender differences in communication within online health communities. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify studies addressing gender differences in messages posted to online health-related support groups. Out of the 1186 articles identified, twelve were retrieved for review. RESULTS: Half of the studies examined gender differences by comparing male and female cancer discussion boards. The literature review revealed that some gender differences were observed in these studies. However, for studies that analysed mixed-gender communities, gender differences were less evident. CONCLUSION: Results seemed to reveal gender differences in communications in single-sex online health support groups, and similarities in communication patterns in mixed-sex online health support groups. However, findings should be treated with caution due to the diversity in studies and methodological issues highlighted in the present review. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for health care professionals to take into account a range of situational and contextual factors that may affect how men and women use online health support groups. However, more robust research is needed before concrete guidelines can be developed to help health care professionals develop effective online support interventions.
OBJECTIVE: Previous research has contended that the unique characteristics of the Internet might remove some of the gender differences that exist in face-to-face healthcare. The aims of the present study were to systematically review studies that have examined gender differences in communication within online health communities. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify studies addressing gender differences in messages posted to online health-related support groups. Out of the 1186 articles identified, twelve were retrieved for review. RESULTS: Half of the studies examined gender differences by comparing male and female cancer discussion boards. The literature review revealed that some gender differences were observed in these studies. However, for studies that analysed mixed-gender communities, gender differences were less evident. CONCLUSION: Results seemed to reveal gender differences in communications in single-sex online health support groups, and similarities in communication patterns in mixed-sex online health support groups. However, findings should be treated with caution due to the diversity in studies and methodological issues highlighted in the present review. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: There is a need for health care professionals to take into account a range of situational and contextual factors that may affect how men and women use online health support groups. However, more robust research is needed before concrete guidelines can be developed to help health care professionals develop effective online support interventions.
Authors: Laura A Taylor; Nasreen Bahreman; Matthew J Hayat; Frank Hoey; Geetha Rajasekaran; Dorry L Segev Journal: Prog Transplant Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 1.187
Authors: Siobhan Bernadette Laura O'Connell; Eden Noah Gelgoot; Paul Henry Grunberg; Joy Schinazi; Deborah Da Costa; Cindy-Lee Dennis; Zeev Rosberger; Phyllis Zelkowitz Journal: Health Psychol Behav Med Date: 2021-02-11
Authors: Yannick Lippka; Oliver Patschan; Tilmann Todenhöfer; Christian Schwentner; Andreas Gutzeit; Axel S Merseburger; Marcus Horstmann Journal: Springerplus Date: 2013-09-08
Authors: Johanna W M Aarts; Marjan J Faber; Anne G den Boogert; Ben J Cohlen; Paul J Q van der Linden; Jan A M Kremer; Willianne L D M Nelen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Kenneth P Tercyak; Darren Mays; Tiffani A DeMarco; McKane E Sharff; Susan Friedman Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Elin Børøsund; Milada Cvancarova; Mirjam Ekstedt; Shirley M Moore; Cornelia M Ruland Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 5.428