Help-seeking, support, and engagement in gestational diabetes mellitus online communities on Facebook: content analysis

Sheila Pham*, Kate Churruca, Louise A. Ellis, Jeffrey Braithwaite

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
33 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has drastically risen in recent years. For some, self-management includes the use of GDM online communities on Facebook. Such communities can fill gaps in information and support that participants are not able to access elsewhere to address unmet needs. Given the popularity of sharing information about pregnancy on Facebook and the documented benefits of diabetes online communities, the same may be true of GDM online communities.

Objective: This study aimed to categorize and quantify what is being discussed in GDM Facebook groups, including informational and emotional help-seeking behavior, and how this support and engagement may be demonstrated by peers through comments and reactions.

Methods: We sourced the data from the 2 largest Facebook groups focused on GDM in Australia. A summative content analysis was conducted on original posts across the 2 groups and coded for topics as well as help-seeking types. The coding scheme was based on the previous work of Liang and Scammon. Visible indicators of engagement, including the number of comments and “reactions,” were tabled and manually evaluated.

Results: There were 388 original posts, and the analysis produced 6 topics: GDM self-management (199/388, 51.3%), GDM clinical management (120/388, 30.9%), preparing for birth (40/388, 10.3%), mental distress (35/388, 9%), birth announcement (29/388, 7.5%), and GDM journey reflections (21/388, 5.4%). Secondary coding of help-seeking type revealed more than half of the posts were informational help-seeking (224/388, 57.7%), while a small proportion were both informational and emotional help-seeking (44/388, 11.3%), and some (12/388, 3.1%) were emotional help-seeking only. Self-disclosure was identified as a fourth category, comprising almost a quarter of all posts (90/388, 23.2%). A total of 6022 comments were posted in response to the original posts, and there were 4452 reactions across all posts. Emotional help-seeking attracted the most comments per thread (mean 21.5, SD 19.8), followed by informational and emotional help-seeking (mean 20.2, SD 14.7), informational help-seeking (mean 15.6, SD 14.6), and self-disclosure (mean 14.3, SD 21.8). Across all help-seeking categories, few reactions occurred compared to comments; in contrast, self-disclosure attracted a large number of reactions (mean 9.4, SD 45.3).

Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to examine peer support in a GDM online community on Facebook. Our findings suggest that active participants’ needs around information and support in relation to GDM are being somewhat met by peer-led online communities. Given the practical limitations of formal health care, including the provision of ongoing social support, it is important to recognize how GDM online communities can complement formal health care and help address unmet needs.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere49494
Pages (from-to)1-6
Number of pages6
JournalJMIR Formative Research
Volume8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 26 Feb 2024

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2024. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

  • clinical management
  • communication
  • content analysis
  • engagement
  • Facebook
  • gestational diabetes
  • health communication
  • help-seeking behavior
  • mental distress
  • online communities
  • peer-support
  • self-disclosure
  • self-management
  • support

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Help-seeking, support, and engagement in gestational diabetes mellitus online communities on Facebook: content analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this