Exploring the Use of a Facebook-Based Support Group for Caregivers of Children and Youth With Complex Care Needs: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Caregivers of children and youth with complex care needs (CCN) require substantial support to ensure the well-being of their families. Web-based peer-to-peer (P2P) support groups present an opportunity for caregivers to seek and provide timely informational and emotional support. Despite the widespread use of social media for health-related support across diverse patient and caregiver populations, it is unclear how caregivers of children and youth with CCN use and potentially benefit from these groups. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the use of a web-based P2P support group for caregivers of children and youth with CCN in New Brunswick, Canada, and investigate factors related to its use by members. METHODS: The study sample consisted of individuals who joined a closed Facebook group and an analysis of content published to the group. In phase 1, a Facebook group was developed in consultation with a patient and family advisory council, and members were recruited to the group. Phase 2 of this study consisted of an observation period during which posts and related interactions (ie, likes, loves, and comments) by members were collected. In phase 3, a web-based survey was distributed, and semistructured interviews were conducted with a subsample of group members. Survey and interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 108 caregivers joined the Facebook group between October 2020 and March 2021. There were 93 posts with 405 comments and 542 associated interactions (448/542, 82.7% likes and 94/542, 17.3% loves). Of these 93 posts, 37 (40%) were made by group members, and 56 (60%) were made by moderators. Of the 108 members, a subsample of 39 (36.1%) completed a web-based survey, and 14 (13%) participated in the interviews. Content analyses of posts by members revealed that inquiry (17/37, 46%), informational (15/37, 41%), and emotional posts (4/37, 11%) were the most common. Emotional posts received the highest number of interactions (median 24.5). In total, 5 themes emerged from the interviews related to the use of the group and mediating factors of interactions between group members: resource for information, altruistic contribution, varying level of engagement, perceived barriers to and facilitators of group activity, and moderators as contributing members. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that caregivers of children and youth with CCN seek geography-specific P2P support groups to meet informational and social support needs. This study contributes to the knowledge on how caregivers use Facebook groups to meet their support needs through moderate and passive engagement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».