A comparison of lurkers and posters within infertility online support groups

CIN - Computers Informatics Nursing

Volumn 29, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 564-573

  Malik, Sumaira H ^a   Coulson, Neil S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Infertility; Lurking; Online support groups

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; FEMALE INFERTILITY; HUMAN; MALE; MALE INFERTILITY; ONLINE SYSTEM; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF HELP;

ADULT; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFERTILITY, FEMALE; INFERTILITY, MALE; MALE; ONLINE SYSTEMS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SELF-HELP GROUPS;

EID: 80455174763     PISSN: 15382931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/NCN.0b013e318224b31d     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Lieberman MA, Goldstein BA. Self-help on-line: an outcome evaluation of breast cancer bulletin boards. J Health Psychol. 2005;10(6):855-862.
2. Lieberman MA, Winzelberg A, Golant M, et al. Online support groups for Parkinson's patients: a pilot study of effectiveness. Soc Work Health Care. 2005;42(2):23-38.
3. Rodgers S, Chen Q. Internet community group participation: psychosocial benefits for women with breast cancer. J Comput Mediat Comm [serial online]. 2005;10(4).
4. Sharf BF. Communicating breast cancer on-line: support and empowerment on the Internet. Wo mens Heal th. 1997;26(1):65-84.
5. van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, Shaw BR, Seydel ER, van de Laar MAFJ. Empowering processes and outcomes of participation in online support groups for patients with breast cancer, arthritis, or fibromyalgia. Qual Health Res. 2008;18(3):405-417.
6. Wright K. Social support within an on-line cancer community: an assessment of emotional support, perceptions of advantages and disadvantages and motives for using the community from a communication perspective. J Appl Comm Res. 2002;30(3):195-209.
7. Zrebiec JF. Internet communities: do they improve coping with diabetes? Diabetes Educ. 2005;31(6):825-836.
8. Walther JB, Boyd S. Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In: Lin CA, Atkin DJ, eds. Communication, Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press; 2002.
9. Katz J. 1998 Luring the lurkers. http://slashdot.org/features/98/12/28/ 1745252.shtml. Accessed July 20, 2009.
10. Nonnecke B, Preece J. Lurker demographics: counting the silent. In: Proceedings of CHI Conference. The Hague: ACM; 2000:73-80.
11. Preece J. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
12. Preece J, Nonnecke B, Andrews D. The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. Comput Hum Behav. 2004;20(2):201-223.
13. Takahashi M, Fujimoto M, Yamasaki N. The active lurker: a new viewpoint for evaluating the influence of an in-house online community. ACM SIGGROUP Bull. 2002;23(3):29-33.
14. van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, Seydel ER, van de Laar MAFJ. Self-reported differences in empowerment between lurkers and posters in online patient support groups. J Med Internet Res [serial online]. 2008;10(2).
15. Mo PKH, Coulson NS. Empowering processes in online support groups among people living with HIV/AIDS: a comparative analysis of 'lurkers' and 'posters'. Comput Hum Behav. 2010;26(5):1183-1193.
16. Cousineau TM, Domar AD. Psychological impact of infertility Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(3):293-308.
17. Greil AL. Infertility and psychological distress: a critical review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(11):1679-1704.
18. Haagen EC, Tuil W, Hendriks J, de Bruijin RPJ, Braat DDM, Kremer JAM. Current internet uses and preferences of IVF and ICSI patients. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(10):2073-2078.
19. Huang JYJ, Al-Fozan H, Tan SL, Tulandi T. Internet use by patients seeking infertility treatment. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2003;83(1):75-76.
20. Weissman A, Gotlieb L, Ward S, Greenblatt E, Casper RF. Use of the Internet by infertile couples. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(6):1179-1182.
21. Malik S, Coulson NS. Examining self-help mechanisms in a webbased infertility support community. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(2):315-318.
22. Malik SH. The male experience of infertility: a thematic analysis of an online infertility support group bulletin board. J Reprod Infant Psyc. 2008;26(1):18-30.
23. Malik SH, Coulson NS. Computer-mediated infertility support groups: an exploratory study of online experiences. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(1):105-113.
24. Russell D. The UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(1):20-40.
25. Sherbourne CD, Stewart A. The medical outcomes study social support survey. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(6):705-714.
26. Olsen DH, Fournier DG, Druckman JM. Counselor's Manual for PREPARE/ENRICH. Minneapolis, MN: PREPARE/ENRICH Inc; 1987.
27. Newton CR, Sherrard W, Glavac I. The fertility problem inventory: measuring perceived infertility-related stress. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(1):54-62.
28. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107-115.
29. Raefeli S, Ravid G, Soroka V. De-lurking in virtual communities: a social communication network approach to measuring the effects of social and cultural capital. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society; 2004.
30. Malik S, Coulson NS. "They all supported me but I felt like I suddenly didn't belong anymore": an exploration of perceived disadvantages to online support seeking. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2010;31(3):140-149.
31. Butler B, Sproull L, Kiesler S, Kraut R. Community effort in online groups: who does the work and why? In: Weisband S, Atwater L, eds. Leadership at a Distance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002.
32. Blumler JG, Katz E. The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1974.
33. Cutrona CE, Russell D. Type of social support and specific stress: toward a theory of optimal matching. In: Sarason IG, Sarason BR, Pierce GR, eds. Social Support: An Interactional View. New York: Wiley; 1990.
34. Bane CMH, Haymaker CMB, Zinchuk J. Social support as a moderator of the big-fish-in-a-little-pond effect in online self-help support groups. J Appl Biobehav Res. 2005;10(4):239-261.
35. Nonnecke B, Andrews D, Preece J. Non-public and public online community participation: needs, attitudes and behavior. Electron Commer R. 2006;6(1):7-20.
36. Okleshen C, Grossbart S. Usenet groups, virtual community and consumer behaviors, Adv Consum Res. 1998;25:276-282.