MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284689809 · doi:10.2196/33172

Experiences, Motivations, and Perceived Impact of Participation in a Facebook-Based Support Group for Caregivers of Children and Youth With Complex Care Needs: Qualitative Descriptive Study

2022· article· en· W4284689809 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Katherine Kelly, Shelley Doucet, Alison Luke, Rima Azar, William Montelpare

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickMount Allison UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersFondation de la recherche en santé du Nouveau-Brunswick
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychologySocial mediaPeer supportSupport groupSocial supportDescriptive statisticsQualitative researchNursingMedicineSocial psychologyWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Caregivers of children and youth with complex care needs (CCNs) often require considerable support to ensure the well-being of their families. Social media present an opportunity to better support caregivers through computer-mediated communication for social support. Peer-to-peer (P2P) support groups are a way in which caregivers are accessing needed support; however, the experiences of caregivers who use these groups and the perceived impact that participation has on caregivers of children and youth with CCNs are not known. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the experiences of caregivers of children and youth with CCNs who use a Facebook-based P2P support group to communicate, understand their motivations to use the group, and investigate its perceived impact on knowledge of programs and services and sense of community belonging among caregivers. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive design was used to explore the experiences and perceived impact of a Facebook-based (Meta Platforms) P2P support group for caregivers of children and youth with CCNs in New Brunswick, Canada. The group was launched on the web in October 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and resulted in 108 caregivers joining the group. A web-based survey was distributed, and semistructured interviews were conducted in February 2021 with a subsample of members. Thematic analysis was used to identify and report patterns related to caregivers' experiences and perceived impacts of participation. RESULTS: A subsample of members in the Facebook group completed the web-based survey (39/108, 36.1%) and interviews (14/108, 12.9%). A total of 5 themes emerged from the interviews: safe space, informational support and direction, web-based connection with peers, impact on knowledge of programs and services, and degree of community belonging. Participants reported joining the group to obtain geography-specific information support and connect with peers. Many participants reported an improvement in their knowledge of programs and services and felt connected to the community; however, the short observation period and diversity among the caregiver population were cited as barriers to community belonging. CONCLUSIONS: Social media present an important opportunity to facilitate the exchange of support between patients and caregivers in an accessible and curated environment. Findings from this study suggest that involvement in web-based, geography-specific P2P support groups can influence perceived knowledge of services and resources and sense of community belonging among caregivers of children and youth with CCNs. Furthermore, this study provides insight into the experiences and motivations of caregivers of children and youth with CCNs who participate in a private social media environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207