MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205056274 · doi:10.2196/31411

Facebook Support Groups for Pediatric Rare Diseases: Cross-Sectional Study to Investigate Opportunities, Limitations, and Privacy Concerns

2021· article· en· W3205056274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarah Catrin Titgemeyer, Christian P. Schaaf

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media in Health Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität zu Köln
KeywordsSupport groupSocial mediaPerspective (graphical)Family medicineSocial supportCross-sectional studyPsychologyHealth professionalsDiseaseMedicineInternet privacyHealth carePsychiatrySocial psychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Because of the nature of rare diseases with affected individuals being widely geographically dispersed, finding an in-person/offline support group itself can be a challenge. Affected individuals therefore turn to social networking platforms such as Facebook for online support groups. OBJECTIVE: We aim to put into perspective the opportunities Facebook offers as a tool for pediatric rare disease support groups by investigating its use, advantages, and limitations including privacy concerns. We analyze group accessibility and usage, advantages specific to rare diseases, perceived privacy, and views on using Facebook for communication between health professionals and parents, pharmaceutical companies, and study recruitment. METHODS: We contacted 12 Facebook support groups for 12 respective rare diseases with pediatric onset and invited group members to participate in a cross-sectional online survey. RESULTS: Of 231 respondents, 87.0% (n=201) of respondents were female, 12.6% (n=29) were male, and 0.4% reported another sex (n=1). Respondents' mean age was 41.56 years (SD 9.375); 91.3% (n=211) of respondents were parents (183 mothers, 27 fathers, 1 other sex); 59.7% (n=138) reported a self-initiated search for the Facebook group, 24.2% (n=56) received recommendations from their health professionals, and 12.6% (n=29) recommendations from someone else affected by the disease. On average, support group members visited Facebook at least once a day, visited and passively participated (read/liked posts) several times a week, and participated actively (commented/posted) once a month. As much as 79.2% (183/231) agreed that they would like to have health professionals as members of the respective Facebook group. Group members expressed more concern about privacy issues on Facebook in general than in their respective Facebook support groups, with concerns mostly related to Facebook itself and nongroup members. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed that Facebook enhances support group accessibility for parents of children with rare diseases. Group participants perceive a reduction and elimination of distance, a common challenge in rare disease, and Facebook support groups create an environment of perceived privacy. The group's privacy setting can be a critical factor for active support group participation. Sharing personal information and pictures on Facebook is very common among group participants, which shows the importance of discussing and protecting children's privacy rights in this context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016067; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016067.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.294
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicSocial Media in Health EducationFrench-language works237,207