What patients get from online peer groups, and what they get alongside it

Design

Mixed-methods study: online surveys with t-test comparisons plus thematic analysis of interviews

Population

1,316 rheumatology patients and 317 clinicians surveyed; 22 patients and 14 clinicians interviewed

Primary outcome

Perceptions and experiences of online peer support groups, and satisfaction with life and care

Effect

85% of patients found helpful information and 48% reported misinformation; 71% of clinicians viewed the groups as helpful

Patients with rheumatic disease spend far more time in online peer groups than in your clinic, and most rheumatologists have never looked inside one. This mixed-methods study surveyed 1,316 patients and 317 clinicians and interviewed 22 and 14 of them respectively.

Three findings are worth carrying. The first is why patients go: validation. Those with rare or so-called invisible disease — the ones whose symptoms outrun their investigations — described reassurance and belonging that they were not getting from family, employers or, sometimes, from us. The second is the information trade. Eighty-five per cent reported finding helpful information in these groups, and 48% reported misinformation circulating in the same spaces; both numbers describe the same groups, and moderation was what members thought separated good from bad. The third is that these spaces are not equally open: younger patients, male patients and racially minoritised patients were more likely to report feeling unwelcome, and members described both relentless positivity and relentless negativity as ways people get pushed out.

Clinicians were broadly positive — 71% thought the groups helpful — while worrying that they feed distrust of health services. The useful response is neither endorsement nor dismissal. Ask what the patient has read and where; treat a question that arrives from a group as a question, not as a challenge; and when you know of a well-moderated condition-specific group, name it, because the alternative is not no group but an unmoderated one.

• Ask routinely what the patient has read online and in which group.
• Answer the content, not the source — dismissing the group closes the channel.
• Name a specific well-moderated group where you know of one, rather than advising against groups generally.
• Watch for the patient who is more isolated than their social media presence suggests, particularly young men.
• Correct specific misinformation in writing where you can; verbal correction competes with a thousand posts.

Why it matters

It reframes the peer group from a nuisance competing with your advice into a channel you can use or ignore.

Don't overread it

This describes perceptions and experiences; it does not show that peer groups improve or worsen clinical outcomes.

The statistics, in plain English

The 85% and 48% are not competing figures — the same patients reported both helpful information and misinformation, so this is not a question of which groups are good. Survey findings of this kind also carry a selection problem: people who respond to a survey about online groups are likely to be more engaged with them than average, which probably overstates how universal the experience is while saying nothing against the themes themselves. The interview component is what gives the findings their weight, and qualitative themes describe what is happening rather than how often.

Read the rest in the app

You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.

Get Daily Doctor — free

Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.