Jacquelyn J Benson1, Debra Parker Oliver2, Karla T Washington3, Abigail J Rolbiecki4, Cynthia B Lombardo5, Julia E Garza6, George Demiris7. 1. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Electronic address: bensonjj@missouri.edu. 2. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Electronic address: oliverdr@health.missouri.edu. 3. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Electronic address: washingtonkar@health.missouri.edu. 4. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Electronic address: rolbieckia@health.missouri.edu. 5. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Electronic address: cblnt4@health.missouri.edu. 6. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. Electronic address: jeg343@health.missouri.edu. 7. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: gdemiris@upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Social support is an important factor in reducing caregiver burden, however, accessing social support via traditional means is often challenging for family caregivers of hospice patients. Online support groups may offer an effective solution. The present study sought to understand dynamics of online social support among family and other informal (e.g., friends) caregivers of hospice cancer patients in an online social support group. The primary aim of the study was to identify types of online social support and support-seeking behaviors, with a secondary aim to understand informal hospice caregivers' preferences for social support. METHOD: Data used in this study were collected as part of a federally funded randomized clinical trial of an informal hospice cancer caregiver support intervention. Findings are based on directed and conventional content analysis of support group members' posts and comments-including text and images-and a sample of caregivers' exit interviews. RESULTS: Analyses demonstrated that the majority of online support provided by group members was emotional support, followed by companionship support, appraisal support, and informational support. Instrumental support was rarely provided. Support was primarily elicited in an indirect manner through self-disclosure and patient updates, with few overt requests for support. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest online social support groups can be a valuable resource for informal caregivers who are in need of emotional support and lack the ability to access face-to-face support groups. Clinical implications of this research to healthcare systems regarding the importance of incorporating nurses and other medical professionals as co-facilitators of online support groups are discussed.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Social support is an important factor in reducing caregiver burden, however, accessing social support via traditional means is often challenging for family caregivers of hospice patients. Online support groups may offer an effective solution. The present study sought to understand dynamics of online social support among family and other informal (e.g., friends) caregivers of hospice cancerpatients in an online social support group. The primary aim of the study was to identify types of online social support and support-seeking behaviors, with a secondary aim to understand informal hospice caregivers' preferences for social support. METHOD: Data used in this study were collected as part of a federally funded randomized clinical trial of an informal hospice cancer caregiver support intervention. Findings are based on directed and conventional content analysis of support group members' posts and comments-including text and images-and a sample of caregivers' exit interviews. RESULTS: Analyses demonstrated that the majority of online support provided by group members was emotional support, followed by companionship support, appraisal support, and informational support. Instrumental support was rarely provided. Support was primarily elicited in an indirect manner through self-disclosure and patient updates, with few overt requests for support. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest online social support groups can be a valuable resource for informal caregivers who are in need of emotional support and lack the ability to access face-to-face support groups. Clinical implications of this research to healthcare systems regarding the importance of incorporating nurses and other medical professionals as co-facilitators of online support groups are discussed.
Authors: Jean Kutner; Kristin M Kilbourn; Allison Costenaro; Courtney A Lee; Carolyn Nowels; Jenny L Vancura; Derek Anderson; Tarah Ellis Keech Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Debra Parker Oliver; Karla Washington; Elaine Wittenberg-Lyles; Ashley Gage; Megan Mooney; George Demiris Journal: Health Soc Work Date: 2015-05
Authors: Maija Reblin; Kristin G Cloyes; Joan Carpenter; Patricia H Berry; Margaret F Clayton; Lee Ellington Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2014-02-17
Authors: Phyllis N Butow; Melanie A Price; Melanie L Bell; Penelope M Webb; Anna deFazio; Michael Friedlander Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-01-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Eva Grunfeld; Doug Coyle; Timothy Whelan; Jennifer Clinch; Leonard Reyno; Craig C Earle; Andrew Willan; Raymond Viola; Marjorie Coristine; Teresa Janz; Robert Glossop Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-06-08 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Katharine E Duckworth; Richard P McQuellon; Gregory B Russell; Kathleen C Perry; Chandylen Nightingale; Perry Shen; Konstantinos I Votanopoulos; Bonny Morris; Edward A Levine Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Debra Parker Oliver; Karla T Washington; Jacquelyn Benson; Patrick White; Dulce Cruz Oliver; Jamie B Smith; Joshua Mazur; Abeba Lakew; Alexandra Lewis; George Demiris Journal: J Soc Work End Life Palliat Care Date: 2022-03-12
Authors: Alyson Ross; Avery Perez; Leslie Wehrlen; Lena J Lee; Li Yang; Robert Cox; Margaret Bevans; Alice Ding; Lori Wiener; Gwenyth R Wallen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Zhaohui Su; Kylie Meyer; Yue Li; Dean McDonnell; Nitha Mathew Joseph; Xiaoshan Li; Yan Du; Shailesh Advani; Ali Cheshmehzangi; Junaid Ahmad; Claudimar Pereira da Veiga; Roger Yat-Nork Chung; Jing Wang Journal: Res Sq Date: 2020-12-14
Authors: Karin Oechsle; Tabea Theißen; Maria Heckel; Lisa Schwenzitzki; Anneke Ullrich; Christoph Ostgathe Journal: Dtsch Med Wochenschr Date: 2021-08-20 Impact factor: 0.628
Authors: Karla T Washington; Amy Piontek; JoAnn Jabbari; Jacquelyn J Benson; George Demiris; Paul E Tatum; Debra Parker Oliver Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Zhaohui Su; Kylie Meyer; Yue Li; Dean McDonnell; Nitha Mathew Joseph; Xiaoshan Li; Yan Du; Shailesh Advani; Ali Cheshmehzangi; Junaid Ahmad; Claudimar Pereira da Veiga; Roger Yat-Nork Chung; Jing Wang Journal: Res Sq Date: 2020-08-18