Exploring Empowerment in Online Support Communities for People Living With Tic Disorders and Tourette Syndrome: Qualitative Survey Study of User Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with tic disorders (TDs)-such as Tourette syndrome-report poorer quality of life compared to non-TD peers, and experience considerable difficulties, including societal stigmatization and barriers to accessing health care and evidence-based interventions. Peer support can help improve psychological outcomes, and online support communities (OSCs) are one way to access psychological support. Empowerment involves improving an individual's cognitive processes to increase their ability to assert control over their health condition. OSCs have been suggested to facilitate empowerment, but this has not yet been investigated in users of OSCs for TDs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore empowerment processes and outcomes present in OSCs as perceived and reported by users of OSCs for TDs living with a TD. METHODS: A web-based survey of current users of OSCs for TDs (n=39) was conducted in summer 2022. The survey included four free-text questions about the impact of using OSCs for TDs in relation to empowerment, such as how it has affected their interactions with health care professionals (HCPs), decisions about treatment, and their experiences of living with a TD. Survey responses were analyzed using deductive and inductive reflexive thematic analysis guided by an initial coding structure derived from the empowering processes and outcomes theoretical framework. RESULTS: Analysis of responses identified a range of empowering processes (eg, exchanging information, encountering emotional support, finding recognition, and sharing experiences) and outcomes (eg, being better informed, feeling more confident in the relationship with HCPs and in making treatment decisions, and enhanced well-being) as related to OSC use in people with TDs that were consistent with the theoretical framework. Additionally, the process of changing stereotypes and stigma, the outcomes of raising awareness, and "one size does not fit all" were identified. A small number of disempowering processes and outcomes were identified, notably the outcome of feeling less confident in the relationship with HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings contribute to evidence for empowerment processes and outcomes experienced by users of health OSCs generally and highlight unique aspects of empowerment for users of OSCs with TDs and how these affect their experiences. OSCs appear to be an important tool in improving mental well-being through validation and recognition from peers, related to the acknowledgment of feelings of imposterism. Using OSCs can expand knowledge through exchanging information and experiences they may not have otherwise had access to-increasing empowerment through improvements in self-management and confidence in treatment decisions. However, this can also decrease trust in HCPs and negatively impact relationships due to decreased hope of assistance and fear of stigmatization for using OSCs. The authors suggest that recommendations regarding the use of OSCs are presented in self-management guidelines concerning coping strategies and the importance of peer support in living with tics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".