Benefiting from social capital in Online support groups: An empirical study of cancer patients

Download (0)

全文

(1)

Volume 10, Number 4, 2007 © Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9986

Benefiting from Social Capital in Online Support

Groups: An Empirical Study of Cancer Patients

CHRISTOPHER E. BEAUDOIN, Ph.D.1and CHEN-CHAO TAO, Ph.D.2

ABSTRACT

With measures specific to the online cancer environment and data from an online survey of cancer patients, the current study finds support for the following model: asynchronous on-line communication  social interaction  social support  positive health outcomes in terms of stress, depression, and coping. The findings suggest that the Internet can be a pos-itive cyber venue for cancer patients as they confront illness, undergo treatment, and seek out support.

587 INTRODUCTION

O

FAMERICANSwho use the Internet, 28%

partic-ipate in online support groups related to med-ical conditions and personal problems.1About 58%

of patients with cancer use the Internet as a source of cancer information and support.2 This Internet

use leads to increases in social support, community, and coping and decreases in loneliness, depression, and anxiety.3,4

Central to understanding the impact of the Inter-net on cancer patients are the concepts of social cap-ital and social support. Social capcap-ital is the actual or potential resources that result from social connec-tions and senses of reciprocity and trust, which, when mobilized, can bring about outcomes at the individual and collective levels.5 Social support,

which involves advice and emotional reinforce-ment, is a behavioral outcome of social capital.6

Re-search has demonstrated two strong linkages: (1) tween mass media use and social capital; and (2) be-tween social capital and public health. Per the first linkage, social capital is predicted by news use,5,7

media campaign exposure,8–10and Internet use.7,11

Per the second linkage, social capital predicts health outcomes,12,13including those of cancer patients.4,14

These two linkages can be merged to form a three-step model: mass media use social capital public health outcomes.9 This three-step

model has been supported in terms of youth health13 and the stress and depression of

support-ers of cancer patients.6 The current study tests a

more complex model on cancer patients: Internet use social capital  social support  health out-comes in terms of coping, stress, and depression. Implicit to this model is that decreases in stress and depression15and an increase in coping16are

poten-tial bridges to cancer recovery.

1Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana. 2Department of Communication and Technology, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

(2)

METHOD

An online survey was conducted from March 21, 2005, to April 30, 2005. Respondents were recruited from Yahoo! cancer-related discussion groups. Sur-vey responses were collected from 372 current can-cer patients.

Household income was measured on a seven-point scale (M 3.47, SD  1.78). The mean age was 42.47 years (SD 12.61). Education was from “no formal education” (0) to “graduate degree” (9) (M 7.47, SD  1.42). About 96% of participants were Caucasian, with 31 percent male.

Internet use for cancer purposes involved online-related communication and online information-seeking. Factor analysis (principal components, with orthogonal rotation) indicated three dimen-sions to the nine items.3,17 Asynchronous online

communication, including e-mail and discussion groups, had five items6(eigenvalue 3.89, variance

explained  31.13%; a  0.82; M  15.25 times during last month, SD 9.58). Offline communica-tion stimulated by online communicacommunica-tion had two items6 (eigenvalue 1.24, variance explained  19.36%; r 0.496, p  0.01; M  1.29 times during last month, SD 2.63). Synchronous online com-munication, including instant messages and chat-rooms, had two items6 (eigenvalue 1.02, variance explained 17.21%; r  0.464, p  .01; M  1.96 times during last month, SD 3.56).

Online information-seeking for cancer purposes involved Internet use by medium3and by

informa-tion type.18Factor analysis (principal components,

with orthogonal rotation) identified two dimen-sions. Information-seeking by information type, such as prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, had six items6(eigenvalue 5.52, variance explained 

40.03%; a 0.89). The mean was 3.27 on a five-point scale from “never” to “very often” (SD 0.94). In-formation-seeking by medium type, including search engines and weblogs, had four items6

(eigen-value 1.03, variance explained  25.46%; a  0.80). The mean was 3.38 days per week (SD 1.77). Social capital and social support were specific to the online cancer environment. Social interaction had two items6(r 0.496, p  .01), with a mean of

16.02 people during last month (SD 12.47). Inter-personal trust had four items6 (a 0.88), with a

mean of 3.53 on a four-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (SD 0.64). Social support had three items from the Interpersonal Sup-port Evaluation List (ISEL) scale19(a 0.88), with a

mean of 3.46 on a four-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (SD 0.84).

Coping had 10 items from the Brief COPE scale16

(a 0.66), with a mean of 3.49 on a four-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (SD 0.48). Stress had eight items from the perceived stress scale20(a 0.85). The mean was 3.37 on a

five-point scale from “never” to “very often” (SD 0.62). Depression was measured with eight items from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depres-sion (CES-D) scale21 (a 0.90). The mean was 3.60

on a five-point scale from “never” to “very often” (SD 0.72). Some items were reversed, with higher levels indicating more positive health status.

BEAUDOIN AND TAO 588

(3)

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was imple-mented, with maximum likelihood method of esti-mation. Excellent model fit is indicated by a com-parative fit index (CFI) of 0.95 or higher, a nonsignificant 2, and a root-mean-squared error of

approximation (RMSEA) of close to 0.06 or less.22

Paths were drawn from Internet use measures to so-cial capital, from soso-cial capital to soso-cial support, and from social support to health outcomes. Demo-graphics were used as control variables. Nonsignif-icant paths were pruned, with paths added per modification indices. Where SEM indicated media-tion, another round of SEM was conducted to as-sess whether the addition of a direct path, bypass-ing the mediatbypass-ing variable, led to a significant model improvement.23

RESULTS

The theorized model was first run (2[27, 372]

36.05, p 0.114; CFI  0.99; RMSEA  0.03). After pruning and adding paths, a second model was run (2 [37, 372] 37.54, p  0.444; CFI  0.99;

RM-SEA 0.01). Endogenous variables without ties to one another were pruned, rendering a parsimonious final model (2 [19, 372] 23.11, p  0.232; CFI 

0.99; RMSEA 0.02). This final model (see Figure 1) accounted for the following variance: social sup-port, 28%; social interaction, 43%; interpersonal trust, 1%; stress, 15%; depression, 12%; and coping, 7%.

The posited four-step model receives support. Asynchronous online communication predicts so-cial interaction (  0.62). Social support is pre-dicted by social interaction (  0.32) and interper-sonal trust (  0.50). Social support predicts stress (  0.13), coping (  0.23), and depression (  0.13), with these positive coefficients signifying pos-itive health outcomes.

Figure 1 offers initial support for social inter-action’s mediation of the effect of asynchronous online communication on social support. In an ad-ditional step, a path was drawn directly from asyn-chronous online communication to social support.23

Because this new model did not represent a signif-icant improvement over the previous model (2[18,

372] 21.26, p  0.267; CFI  0.99; RMSEA  0.02), there is support for mediation. There is also support for the mediation role of social support. In the ad-ditional step, direct paths were drawn from social capital to the three health outcomes. The new model did not represent a significant improvement over the previous model (2[13, 372] 16.17, p  0.240;

CFI 0.99; RMSEA  0.03).

DISCUSSION

SEM offered support for the following four-step model: asynchronous online communication so-cial interaction social support  positive health outcomes in terms of depression, coping, and stress. Synchronous online communication falls out of the model, perhaps because of the lack of a consistent mass and continuity in terms of chatroom and in-stant-messaging participants.

The model has two blemishes that should be noted. First, the negative effect from information-seeking by medium type to depression relates to previous research indicating that, while the Internet can empower and inform cancer patients, it can also be intimidating, confusing, and frightening.24

Sec-ond, the lack of significant paths from Internet use to interpersonal trust suggests a complexity to me-dia effects on social trust. Previous research has demonstrated that Internet use does not predict in-terpersonal trust11or that such effects can be

indi-rect and vary by content type.5

Three limitations should be noted. First, general-ization of the findings is limited by this study’s fo-cus on only users of Yahoo! cancer groups. Second, to avoid overburdening cancer patients, certain de-cisions were made to limit the number of items used in measurement scales. Third, although SEM posits a direction of influence, it does not demonstrate causality to the degree that experimental research can do.

This study has implications for health practition-ers and researchpractition-ers. We hope health practitionpractition-ers will understand the benefits that online communi-cation can have in regards to the development of social capital, social support, and subsequent posi-tive health outcomes. In addition, we hope that re-searchers will continue to model the manner by which the mass media can influence public health outcomes via the mediation of social capital and so-cial support.

REFERENCES

1. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2005). Trends. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Proj-ect.

2. Monnier, J., Laken, M., & Carter, C.L. (2002). Patient and caregiver interest in Internet-based cancer ser-vices. Cancer Practice 10:305–310.

3. Fogel, J., Albert, S.M., Schnabel, F., Ditkoff, B.A., & Neugut, A.I. (2002). Internet use and social support in women with breast cancer. Health Psychology 21:398–404.

(4)

4. Lieberman, M.A., Golant, M., Giese-Davis, J., Win-zlenberg, A., Benjamin, H., Humphreys, K., Kronen-wetter, C., Russo, S., & Spiegel, D. (2003). Electronic support groups and breast carcinoma: a clinical trial of effectiveness. Cancer 97:920–925.

5. Beaudoin, C.E., & Thorson, E. (2004). Social capital in rural and urban communities: testing differences in media effects and models. Journalism & Mass

Commu-nication Quarterly 81:378–399.

6. Beaudoin, C.E., & Tao, C.C. (In press). The impact of online cancer resources on the supporters of cancer patients. New Media & Society.

7. Shah, D.V., McLeod, J.M., & Yoon, S.-H. (2001). Com-munication, context, and community: an exploration of print, broadcast, and Internet influences.

Commu-nication Research 28:464–506.

8. Beaudoin, C.E., Thorson, E., & Hong, T. (2006). Pro-moting youth health by social empowerment: a me-dia campaign targeting social capital. Health

Commu-nication 19:175–182.

9. Thorson, E., & Beaudoin, C.E. (2004). The impact of a health campaign on health social capital. Journal of

Health Communication 9:167–194.

10. Beaudoin, C.E., & Thorson, E. (In press). Evaluating the effects of a youth health media campaign. Journal

of Health Communication.

11. Shah, D.V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R.L. (2001). “Con-necting” and “discon“Con-necting” with civic life: patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital.

Political Communication 18:141–162.

12. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B.P., & Glass, R. (1999). Social capital and self-rated health: a contextual analysis.

American Journal of Public Health 89:1187–1193.

13. Beaudoin, C.E. (In press). The impact of news use and social capital on youth well-being: a community-level analysis. Journal of Community Psychology.

14. Landro, L. (1999). Alone together: cancer patients and survivors find treatment-and support—online. The

Oncologist 4:59–63.

15. Tjemsland, L., Soreide, J.A., & Malt, U.F. (1999). Post-traumatic distress symptoms in operable breast can-cer III: status one year after surgery. Breast Cancan-cer

Re-search and Treatment 47:141–151.

16. Alferi, S.M., Carver, C.S., Antoni, M.H., Weiss, S., & Duran, R.E. (2001). An exploratory study of social support, distress, and life disruption among low-in-come Hispanic women under treatment for early stage breast cancer. Health Psychology 20:41–46. 17. Wellman, B., Quan Haase, A., Witte, J., & Hampton,

K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or sup-plement social capital? Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral

Sci-entist 45:436–455.

18. Johnson, D.J. (1997). Cancer-related information seeking. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

19. Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress.

Jour-nal of Applied Social Psychology 13:99–125.

20. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health

and Social Behavior 24:385–396.

21. Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: a self-report de-pression scale for research in the general population.

Applied Psychological Measurement 1:385–401.

22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternative. Structural Equation

Modeling 6:1–55.

23. Holmbeck, G.N. (1997). Toward terminological, con-ceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of media-tors and moderamedia-tors: examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of

Con-sulting and Clinical Psychology 65:599–610.

24. Penson, R.T., Benson, R.C., Parles, K., Chabner, B.A., & Lynch, T.J., Jr. (2002). Virtual connections: Internet health care. The Oncologist 7:555–568.

Address reprint requests to:

Dr. Christopher E. Beaudoin Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine 1440 Canal St., Suite 2315, TW-19 New Orleans, LA 70112 E-mail: beaudoin@tulane.edu BEAUDOIN AND TAO 590

(5)

1. Heather J. Hether, Sheila T. Murphy, Thomas W. Valente. 2014. It's Better to Give Than to Receive: The Role of Social Support, Trust, and Participation on Health-Related Social Networking Sites. Journal of Health Communication 1-16. [CrossRef] 2. Michelle M. Kazmer, Mia Liza A. Lustria, Juliann Cortese, Gary Burnett, Ji-Hyun Kim, Jinxuan Ma, Jeana Frost. 2014.

Distributed knowledge in an online patient support community: Authority and discovery. Journal of the Association for Information

Science and Technology n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]

3. TIINA YLI-UOTILa, ANJA RANTANEN, TARJA SUOMINEN. 2014. Online Social Support Received by Patients With Cancer. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing 32:3, 118-126. [CrossRef]

4. Leonard Reinecke, Sabine Trepte. 2014. Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: A two-wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS communication. Computers in Human Behavior 30, 95-102. [CrossRef] 5. Christian Fieseler, Matthes Fleck. 2013. The Pursuit of Empowerment through Social Media: Structural Social Capital Dynamics

in CSR-Blogging. Journal of Business Ethics 118:4, 759-775. [CrossRef]

6. Phoenix K.H. Mo, Neil S. Coulson. 2013. Online support group use and psychological health for individuals living with HIV/ AIDS. Patient Education and Counseling 93:3, 426-432. [CrossRef]

7. Matthias Hofer, Viviane Aubert. 2013. Perceived bridging and bonding social capital on Twitter: Differentiating between followers and followees. Computers in Human Behavior 29:6, 2134-2142. [CrossRef]

8. Matt C. Howard, Stephanie M. Magee. 2013. To boldly go where no group has gone before: An analysis of online group identity and validation of a measure. Computers in Human Behavior 29:5, 2058-2071. [CrossRef]

9. Jing Zhao, Sejin Ha, Richard Widdows. 2013. Building Trusting Relationships in Online Health Communities. Cyberpsychology,

Behavior, and Social Networking 16:9, 650-657. [Abstract] [Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF] [Full Text PDF with Links] 10. Jae Eun Chung. 2013. Social Networking in Online Support Groups for Health: How Online Social Networking Benefits Patients.

Journal of Health Communication 1-21. [CrossRef]

11. Susan Stewart Loane, Steven D'Alessandro. 2013. Communication That Changes Lives: Social Support Within an Online Health Community for ALS. Communication Quarterly 61:2, 236-251. [CrossRef]

12. Susan Stewart Loane, Steven D'Alessandro. 2013. Peer-to-Peer Value Through Social Capital in an Online Motor Neuron Disease Community. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 25:2, 164-185. [CrossRef]

13. Yuan-Hui Tsai, Sheng-Wuu Joe, Chieh-Peng Lin, Rong-Tsu Wang, Yu-Hsiang Chang. 2012. Modeling the relationship between IT-mediated social capital and social support: Key mediating mechanisms of sense of group. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change 79:9, 1592-1604. [CrossRef]

14. Brad Love, Brittani Crook, Charee M. Thompson, Sarah Zaitchik, Jessica Knapp, Leah LeFebvre, Barbara Jones, Erin Donovan-Kicken, Emily Eargle, Ruth Rechis. 2012. Exploring Psychosocial Support Online: A Content Analysis of Messages in an Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Community. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15:10, 555-559. [Abstract] [Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF] [Full Text PDF with Links]

15. Shannon Vallor. 2012. Flourishing on facebook: virtue friendship & new social media. Ethics and Information Technology 14:3, 185-199. [CrossRef]

16. Gül SeçkinCyber Behaviors of Self Health Care Management 722-734. [CrossRef]

17. Robert A. Bell, Xinyi Hu, Sharon E. Orrange, Richard L. Kravitz. 2011. Lingering questions and doubts: Online information-seeking of support forum members following their medical visits. Patient Education and Counseling 85:3, 525-528. [CrossRef] 18. Sabine Trepte, Leonard Reinecke, Keno Juechems. 2011. The social side of gaming: How playing online computer games creates

online and offline social support. Computers in Human Behavior . [CrossRef]

19. Maurice Vergeer, Yon Soo Lim, Han Woo Park. 2011. Mediated relations: new methods to study online social capital. Asian

Journal of Communication 21:5, 430-449. [CrossRef]

20. Phoenix K. H. Mo, Neil S. Coulson. 2011. Developing a model for online support group use, empowering processes and psychosocial outcomes for individuals living with HIV/AIDS. Psychology & Health 1-15. [CrossRef]

21. Eun-Ok Im. 2011. Online Support of Patients and Survivors of Cancer. Seminars in Oncology Nursing 27:3, 229-236. [CrossRef] 22. Yan Hong, Ninfa C. Peña-Purcell, Marcia G. Ory. 2011. Outcomes of online support and resources for cancer survivors: A

systematic literature review. Patient Education and Counseling . [CrossRef]

23. Laramie D. Taylor, Robert A. Bell, Richard L. Kravitz. 2011. Third-person effects and direct-to-consumer advertisements for antidepressants. Depression and Anxiety 28:2, 160-165. [CrossRef]

(6)

24. Robert A. Bell, Laramie D. Taylor, Richard L. Kravitz. 2010. Do antidepressant advertisements educate consumers and promote communication between patients with depression and their physicians?. Patient Education and Counseling 81:2, 245-250. [CrossRef]

25. Jacquelyn Quin, Victor Stams, Beth Phelps, Theresa Boley, Stephen Hazelrigg. 2010. Interest in Internet Lung Cancer Support Among Rural Cardiothoracic Patients. Journal of Surgical Research 160:1, 35-39. [CrossRef]

26. Huon Longman, Dr. Erin O'Connor, Patricia Obst. 2009. The Effect of Social Support Derived from World of Warcraft on Negative Psychological Symptoms. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12:5, 563-566. [Abstract] [Full Text PDF] [Full Text PDF with Links]

27. Kathleen M Griffiths, Alison L Calear, Michelle Banfield. 2009. Systematic Review on Internet Support Groups (ISGs) and Depression (1): Do ISGs Reduce Depressive Symptoms?. Journal of Medical Internet Research 11:3. . [CrossRef]

28. Susan Scola-Streckenbach. 2008. Experience-based Information: The Role of Web-based Patient Networks in Consumer Health Information Services. Journal of Consumer Health On the Internet 12:3, 216-236. [CrossRef]

29. Christopher E. Beaudoin. 2008. Explaining the Relationship between Internet Use and Interpersonal Trust: Taking into Account Motivation and Information Overload. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13:3, 550-568. [CrossRef]

30. PAULA KLEMM. 2008. Late Effects of Treatment for Long-term Cancer Survivors. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing

數據

FIG. 1. Final structural equation model.
FIG. 1. Final structural equation model. p.2

參考文獻

相關主題 :