| Literature DB >> 33151155 |
Hyeyeon Lee1, Hyeonkyeong Lee2, Youlim Kim1, Sookyung Kim1, Young-Me Lee3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social networking services (SNSs) are recognized to be a promising approach to easily deliver health interventions and to enhance social support for exercise adherence. However, the patterns and aspects of social support through SNSs have not been reported and their influence on other social-cognitive factors remains inconclusive.Entities:
Keywords: SNS; exercise adherence; network support; social support; social-cognitive factors; text mining
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33151155 PMCID: PMC7677014 DOI: 10.2196/19159
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Conceptual definitions of social support and frequency of messages of each type.
| Categories and subcategories of social support | Frequency of messages (N=259), n (%) | ||
|
|
| ||
|
| Total | 172 (66.4) | |
|
| 1. Access | 0 (0) | |
|
| 2. Presence | 0 (0) | |
|
| 3. Companionship | 172 (66.4) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Total | 40 (15.4) | |
|
| 4. Relationship | 11 (4.2) | |
|
| 5. Physical or visual affection | 2 (0.8) | |
|
| 6. Confidentiality | 0 (0) | |
|
| 7. Sympathy | 1 (0.4) | |
|
| 8. Understanding or empathy | 0 (0) | |
|
| 9. Encouragement | 14 (5.4) | |
|
| 10. Prayer | 0 (0) | |
|
| 11. Gratitude | 12 (4.6) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Total | 28 (10.8) | |
|
| 12. Advice | 10 (3.8) | |
|
| 13. Referral | 0 (0) | |
|
| 14. Situational appraisal | 1 (0.4) | |
|
| 15. Teaching | 17 (6.6) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Total | 19 (7.3) | |
|
| 16. Compliment | 13 (5.0) | |
|
| 17. Validation | 6 (2.3) | |
|
| 18. Relieving of blame | 0 (0) | |
Example quotes from messages of each type of social support.
| Type of support | Quote |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Offline culture class | “It is difficult for me to attend.” [ID 5, September 9, Group 1] | |
|
| Naming a group | “Beautiful Women Club?” [ID 45, August 17, Group 4] | |
|
| Daily life | “I’m on vacation for 5 days.” [ID 2, August 21, Group 1] | |
|
| Exercise barriers | “I do well walking, but muscle exercise is difficult for me.” [ID 20, August 10, Group 2] | |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Relationship | “Nice to meet you.” [ID 22, August 10, Group 2] |
|
| Physical affection | “Emoticon: kiss.” [ID 2, August 29, Group 1] |
| |
| Sympathy | “I’m sorry to hear that.” [ID 26, September 4, Group 3] |
| |
| Encouragement | “Let's exercise this week as well for health.” [ID 43, August 23, Group 4] |
| |
| Gratitude | “Thanks everyone.” [ID 26, August 23, Group 3] |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Advice | “To eat less sodium, I put some vegetables in Korean noodles.” [ID 19, September 18, Group 3] |
|
| Situational appraisal | “This offline cultural class is an essential education for a healthy life, I think.” [ID 26, September 4, Group 3] |
| |
| Teaching | “The phone will work again if you turn the phone off and on.” [ID 18, August 13, Group 2] |
| |
|
|
|
| |
| Compliment | “Congratulations.” [ID 2, August 25, Group 1] |
| |
| Validation | “I agree.” [ID 28, August 10, Group 3] |
| |
Figure 1Co-occurrence matrix. The darker the color of the square, the more frequently the pair of words appears.
Changes in the levels of social-cognitive factors at baseline and 12 weeks.
| Factors | Total (N=24) | Group 1 (n=6) | Group 2 (n=8) | Group 3 (n=4) | Group 4 (n=6) |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) |
| |||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| Baseline | 23.79 (7.35) |
| 24.17 (3.66) |
| 21.75 (8.71) | .80 | 18.75 (7.46) | .07 | 29.50 (5.39) |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| 12 weeks | 29.25 (8.24) |
| 31.17 (4.02) |
| 22.00 (7.60) |
| 28.00 (7.35) |
| 37.83 (2.14) |
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| Baseline | 6.92 (1.95) | .18 | 6.17 (2.32) |
| 6.75 (1.58) | .23 | 8.00 (2.00) | .71 | 7.17 (2.14) | .07 |
| |||||||||||
|
| 12 weeks | 7.46 (2.30) |
| 8.67 (1.21) |
| 5.63 (2.67) |
| 7.75 (0.50) |
| 8.50 (2.07) |
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
| Baseline | 14.83 (5.22) |
| 17.00 (3.63) | .21 | 13.13 (3.83) | .12 | 15.00 (7.75) | .29 | 14.83 (6.74) |
|
| |||||||||||
|
| 12 weeks | 18.63 (4.17) |
| 19.50 (2.59) |
| 15.00 (4.01) |
| 20.50 (1.92) |
| 21.33 (3.78) |
|
| |||||||||||
aThe Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted.
bMeasured using the Korean version of the Brief Sense of Community Scale; scores range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
cItalicized P values indicate significant results.
dMeasured using the Korean version of the Barrier Self-Efficacy Scale; scores ranged from 0 (completely certain that I could not) to 10 (completely certain that I could).
eAssessed using a questionnaire developed by Sallis et al [35] and translated and modified by Choi [36]; scores ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
The frequency of each type of social support message provided by each group.
| Group | Social support messages by type (N=259), n (%) | ||||
|
| Network | Emotional | Information | Esteem | Total |
| 1 | 56 (73.7) | 10 (13.2) | 3 (3.9) | 7 (9.2) | 76 (29.3) |
| 2 | 33 (62.3) | 5 (9.4) | 14 (26.4) | 1 (1.9) | 53 (20.5) |
| 3 | 35 (48.6) | 18 (25.0) | 11 (15.3) | 8 (11.1) | 72 (27.8) |
| 4 | 48 (82.7) | 7 (12.1) | 0 (0) | 3 (5.2) | 58 (22.4) |
| Total | 172 (66.4) | 40 (15.4) | 28 (10.8) | 19 (7.4) | 259 (100) |