Treadgold Bethan M, Coulson Neil S, Campbell John L, Lambert Jeffrey, Pitchforth Emma
Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care, Health and Community Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
J Med Internet Res. 2025 May 16;27:e71140. doi: 10.2196/71140.
The use of health-related online peer support groups to support self-management of health issues has become increasingly popular. The quality of information and advice may have important implications for public health and for the utility of such groups. There is some evidence of variable quality of web-based health information, but the extent to which misinformation is a problem in online peer support groups is unclear.
We aimed to gain insight into the quality of information and advice about health conditions in online peer support groups and to review the tools available for assessing the quality of such information.
A scoping review was undertaken following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], CINAHL, Web of Science, ASSIA, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, and Google Scholar) for literature published before November 2023, as well as citations of included articles. Primary research studies, reviews, and gray literature that explored the quality of information and advice in online peer support groups were included. Title and abstracts were independently screened by 2 reviewers. Data were extracted and tabulated, and key findings were summarized narratively.
A total of 14 (0.45%) relevant articles, from 3136 articles identified, were included. Of these, 10 (71%) were primary research articles comprising diverse quality appraisal methodologies, and 4 (29%) were review articles. All articles had been published between 2014 and 2023. Across the literature, there was more evidence of poor quality information and misinformation than of good quality information and advice, particularly around long-term and life-threatening conditions. There were varying degrees of misinformation about non-life-threatening conditions and about mental health conditions. Misinformation about noncommunicable diseases was reported as particularly prevalent on Facebook. Fellow online peer support group users often played an active role in correcting misinformation by replying to false claims or providing correct information in subsequent posts. Quality appraisal tools were reported as being used by researchers and health care professionals in appraising the quality of information and advice, including established tools for the appraisal of health-related information (eg, DISCERN, HONcode criteria, and Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria). No tools reported were specifically designed to appraise online peer support group content.
While there is good quality information and advice exchanged between users in online peer support groups, our findings show that misinformation is a problem, which is a matter of public health concern. Confidence in the quality of information shared may determine the utility of online peer support groups for patients and health care professionals. Our review suggests that clinical and academic experts in health conditions could play a valuable role in ensuring the quality of content. Several quality appraisal tools are available to support such an initiative.
利用与健康相关的在线同伴支持小组来支持健康问题的自我管理已变得越来越普遍。信息和建议的质量可能对公共卫生以及此类小组的效用具有重要影响。有一些证据表明基于网络的健康信息质量参差不齐，但错误信息在在线同伴支持小组中成为问题的程度尚不清楚。
我们旨在深入了解在线同伴支持小组中关于健康状况的信息和建议的质量，并回顾可用于评估此类信息质量的工具。
按照乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的范围综述方法进行了一项范围综述。我们在电子数据库（MEDLINE [Ovid]、CINAHL、科学引文索引、亚洲社会科学索引、ProQuest学位论文数据库和谷歌学术）中搜索了2023年11月之前发表的文献以及纳入文章的参考文献。纳入了探索在线同伴支持小组中信息和建议质量的原始研究、综述和灰色文献。由两名评审员独立筛选标题和摘要。提取数据并制成表格，关键发现以叙述方式进行总结。
在识别出的3136篇文章中，共纳入了14篇（0.45%）相关文章。其中，10篇（71%）是包含不同质量评估方法的原始研究文章，4篇（29%）是综述文章。所有文章均发表于2014年至2023年之间。在整个文献中，质量差的信息和错误信息的证据比高质量的信息和建议更多，尤其是在长期和危及生命的状况方面。关于非危及生命的状况和心理健康状况也存在不同程度的错误信息。据报道，关于非传染性疾病的错误信息在脸书上尤为普遍。在线同伴支持小组的其他用户通常通过回复虚假声明或在后续帖子中提供正确信息来积极纠正错误信息。研究人员和医疗保健专业人员在评估信息和建议的质量时报告使用了质量评估工具，包括用于评估与健康相关信息的既定工具（如DISCERN、健康在线网络准则和《美国医学会杂志》基准标准）。没有报告的工具是专门设计用于评估在线同伴支持小组内容的。
虽然在线同伴支持小组中的用户之间交流了高质量的信息和建议，但我们的研究结果表明错误信息是一个问题，这是一个公共卫生问题。对所分享信息质量的信心可能决定在线同伴支持小组对患者和医疗保健专业人员的效用。我们的综述表明，健康状况方面的临床和学术专家在确保内容质量方面可以发挥宝贵作用。有几种质量评估工具可用于支持这一举措。
