Web-Based Peer Support Interventions for Adults Living With Chronic Conditions: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, 1 in 3 adults live with multiple chronic conditions. Thus, effective interventions are needed to prevent and manage these chronic conditions and to reduce the associated health care costs. Teaching effective self-management practices to people with chronic diseases is one strategy to address the burden of chronic conditions. With the increasing availability of and access to the internet, the implementation of web-based peer support programs has become increasingly common. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this scoping review is to synthesize existing literature and key characteristics of web-based peer support programs for persons with chronic conditions. METHODS: This scoping review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews guidelines. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Chronic diseases identified by the Public Health Agency of Canada were included. Our review was limited to peer support interventions delivered on the web. Peers providing support had to have the chronic condition that they were providing support for. The information abstracted included the year of publication, country of study, purpose of the study, participant population, key characteristics of the intervention, outcome measures, and results. RESULTS: After duplicates were removed, 12,641 articles were screened. Data abstraction was completed for 41 articles. There was a lack of participant diversity in the included studies, specifically with respect to the conditions studied. There was a lack of studies with older participants aged ≥70 years. There was inconsistency in how the interventions were described in terms of the duration and frequency of the interventions. Informational, emotional, and appraisal support were implemented in the studied interventions. Few studies used a randomized controlled trial design. A total of 4 of the 6 randomized controlled trials reported positive and significant results, including decreased emotional distress and increased health service navigation, self-efficacy, social participation, and constructive attitudes and approaches. Among the qualitative studies included in this review, there were several positive experiences related to participating in a web-based peer support intervention, including increased compassion and improved attitudes toward the individual's chronic condition, access to information, and empowerment. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited recent, high-level evidence on web-based peer support interventions. Where evidence exists, significant improvements in social participation, self-efficacy, and health-directed activity were demonstrated. Some studies incorporated a theoretical framework, and all forms of peer support-emotional, informational, and appraisal support-were identified in the studies included in this review. We recommend further research on web-based peer support in more diverse patient groups (eg, for older adults and chronic conditions outside of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and HIV or AIDS). Key gaps in the area of web-based peer support will serve to inform the development and implementation of future programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".