Interventions via the internet provide support to individuals managing chronic illness. The purpose of this integrative review was to determine how the features of a computer-mediated environment influence social interactions among individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Methods and design
A combination of MeSH and keyword terms, based on the cognates of three broad groupings: social interaction, computer-mediated environments, and chronic illness, was used to search the PubMed, PsychInfo, Sociology Research Database, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria.
Results
Computer-mediated environments enhance an individual's ability to interact with peers while increasing the convenience of obtaining personalized support. A matrix, focused on social interaction among peers, identified themes across all articles, and five characteristics emerged: (1) the presence of synchronous and asynchronous communication, (2) the ability to connect with similar peers, (3) the presence or absence of a moderator, (4) personalization of feedback regarding individual progress and self-management, and (5) the ability of individuals to maintain choice during participation.
Conclusions
Individuals interact with peers to obtain relevant, situation-specific information and knowledge about managing their own care. Computer-mediated environments facilitate the ability of individuals to exchange this information despite temporal or geographical barriers that may be present, thus improving T2D self-management.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Diabetes Statistics Report 2014: estimates of diabetes and its burden in the united states, Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014. . (cited U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/statsreport14/national-diabetes-report-web.pdf) (accessed 31 March 2015).
2.
FunnellMAndersonR. Working toward the next generation of diabetes self-management education. Am J Prev Med2002; 22: 3–5.
3.
ClarkM. Diabetes self-management education: a review of published studies. Prim Care Diabetes2008; 2: 113–120.
4.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med1993; 329: 977–986.
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diabetes Report Card 2012, Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012. . (cited U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/diabetesreportcard.pdf) (accessed 31 March 2015).
6.
FunnellMAndersonR. Changing office practice and health care systems to facilitate diabetes self-management. Curr Diabetes Rep2003; 3: 127–133.
7.
HerrejonKHartkeJLSchererJ. The creation and impact evaluation of “Your Guide to Diet and Diabetes,” an interactive web-based diabetes tutorial. Diabetes Technol Ther2009; 11: 171–179.
8.
American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes Care2013; 36: 1033–1046.
9.
SteinsbekkARyggLOLisuloM. Group based diabetes self-management education compared to routine treatment for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Health Serv Res2012; 12: 213.
10.
DaleJRWilliamsSMBowyerV. What is the effect of peer support on diabetes outcomes in adults? A systematic review. Diabetic Med2012; 29: 1361–1377.
11.
RummelR. The conflict helix. Understanding conflict and war. vol. 2, New York: Sage Publications, 1975. distributed by Halsted Press.
12.
BergerCRGoals and knowledge structures in social interaction. In: DalyJAKnappML (eds). Handbook of interpersonal communication, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2002, pp. 181–212.
13.
Bretz R and Schmidbauer M. Media for Interactive Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1983.
14.
HenriFComputer conferencing and content analysis. In: KayeA (ed). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. NATO ASI Series 90, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 1992, pp. 117–136. .
15.
SouthwellB. Social networks and popular understanding of science and health: sharing disparities, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
16.
Holt-LunstadJSmithTBLaytonJB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med2010; 7: 1–20.
17.
UmbersonDMontezJK. Social relationships and health: a flashpoint for health policy. J Health Soc Behav2010; 51: S54–S66.
18.
HouseJLandisKRUmbersonD. Social relationships and health. Science1988; 241: 540–545.
19.
ChristakisNAFowlerJH. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med2007; 357: 370–379.
20.
GallantMP. The influence of social support on chronic illness self-management: a review and directions for research. Health Educ Behav2003; 30: 170–195.
21.
ChartrandTLBarghJA. The chameleon effect: the perception–behavior link and social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol1999; 76: 893–910.
22.
GreenhalghTCollardACampbell-RichardsD. Storylines of self-management: narratives of people with diabetes from a multiethnic inner city population. J Health Serv Res Policy2011; 16: 37–43.
23.
BondGEBurrRLWolfFM. The effects of a web-based intervention on psychosocial well-being among adults aged 60 and older with diabetes: a randomized trial. Diabetes Educ2010; 36: 446–456.
24.
MarzialiE. E-health program for patients with chronic disease. Telemed J e-Health2009; 15: 176–181.
25.
HeislerM. Overview of peer support models to improve diabetes self-management and clinical outcomes. Diabetes Spectr2007; 20: 214–221.
26.
TurnerJWGrubeJAMeyersJ. Developing an optimal match within online communities: an exploration of CMC support communities and traditional support. J Commun2001; 51: 231–251.
27.
WrightKBMuhtasebAPersonal relationships and computer-mediated support groups. In: WebbLMWrightKB (eds). Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships, New York: Peter Lang, 2011, pp. 137–155.
28.
ShayaFTChirikovVVHowardD. Effect of social networks intervention in type 2 diabetes: a partial randomised study. J Epidemiol Community Health2014; 68: 326–332.
29.
FunnellMBrownTChildsB. National standards for diabetes self-management education. Diabetes Care2009; 32: S87–S95.
30.
ShafferVAZikmund-FisherBJ. All stories are not alike: a purpose-, content-, and valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids. Med Decis Making2013; 33: 4–13.
31.
HinyardLJKreuterMW. Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: a conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Educ Behav2007; 34: 777–792.
32.
GlasgowRWagnerEKaplanR. If diabetes is a public health problem, why not treat it as one? A population-based approach to chronic illness. Ann Behav Med1999; 21: 159–170.
33.
DeakinTMcShaneCECadeJE. Group based training for self-management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2005; 2: CD003417. .
34.
PalKEastwoodSVMichieS. Computer-based diabetes self-management interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2013; 3: CD008776. .
35.
GrazianoJAGrossCR. A randomized controlled trial of an automated telephone intervention to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Adv Nurs Sci2009; 32: E42–E57.
36.
PietteJDWeinbergerMKraemerFB. Impact of automated calls with nurse follow-up on diabetes treatment outcomes in a department of veterans affairs health care system: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care2001; 24: 202–208.
37.
TangPCOverhageJMChanAS. Online disease management of diabetes: engaging and motivating patients online with enhanced resources-diabetes (EMPOWER-D), a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc2013; 20: 526–534.
38.
StromJLEgedeLE. The impact of social support on outcomes in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Curr Diabetes Rep2012; 12: 769–781.
39.
PalKEastwoodSVMichieS. Computer-based interventions to improve self-management in adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care2014; 37: 1759–1766.
40.
PacaudDKelleyHDowneyA. Successful delivery of diabetes self-care education and follow-up through eHealth media. Can J Diabetes2012; 36: 257–262.
41.
BurkowTMVognildLKOstengenG. Internet-enabled pulmonary rehabilitation and diabetes education in group settings at home: a preliminary study of patient acceptability. BMC Med Inform Decis Making2013; 13: 1–33.
42.
JerniganVBLorigK. The internet diabetes self-management workshop for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Health Promot Pract2011; 12: 261–270.
43.
GlasgowRBolesSMMcKayHG. The D-Net diabetes self-management program: long-term implementation, outcomes, and generalization results. Prev Med2003; 36: 410–419.
44.
McKayHGGlasgowREFeilEG. Internet-based diabetes self-management and support: initial outcomes from the diabetes network project. Rehabil Psychol2002; 47: 31–48.
45.
McKayHGKingDEakinEG. The diabetes network internet-based physical activity intervention: a randomized pilot study. Diabetes Care2001; 24: 1328–1334.
46.
LiebreichTPlotnikoffRCCourneyaKS. Diabetes NetPLAY: a physical activity website and linked email counselling randomized intervention for individuals with type 2 diabetes. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act2009; 6: 15.
CaseSJerniganVGardnerA. Content and frequency of writing on diabetes bulletin boards: does race make a difference?. J Med Internet Res2009; 11: 1–9.
49.
McKayHGFeilEGGlasgowRE. Feasibility and use of an internet support service for diabetes self-management. Diabetes Educ1998; 24: 174–179.
50.
FisherEBBrownsonCAO'TooleML. Ongoing follow-up and support for chronic disease management in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Diabetes Initiative. Diabetes Educ2007; 33: 201S–207S.
51.
HeislerMVijanSMakkiF. Diabetes control with reciprocal peer support versus nurse care management: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med2010; 153: 507–515.
FahyEHardikarRFoxA. Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australas Med J2014; 7: 24–28.
57.
Risoldi CochraneZGregoryPWilsonA. Readability of consumer health information on the internet: a comparison of U.S. government-funded and commercially funded websites. J Health Commun2012; 17: 1003–1010.
58.
RicciardiLMostashariFMurphyJ. A national action plan to support consumer engagement via E-health. Health Affairs2013; 32: 376–384.
59.
Health on the Net Foundation. The HON code of conduct for medical and health web sites (HON code), Switzerland: Health on the Net Foundation, 1996. . https://www.healthonnet.org/HONcode/Conduct.html (19 September 2013; accessed 31 May 2015).
60.
U.S. National Library of Medicine MedlinePlus. MedlinePlus guide to healthy web surfingBethesda, MD: NIH, U.S. National Library of Medicinehttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/healthywebsurfing.html (20 April 2015, accessed 31 May 2015).
61.
EysenbachGPowellJKussO. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA2002; 287: 2691–2700.
62.
WinkerMAFlanaginAChi-LumB. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the internet: principles governing AMA web sites. JAMA2000; 283: 1600–1606.
