More than 2 billion people worldwide now use social networking sites, with an increasing number of users accessing these sites to obtain health information and engage in emotional support. Yet, investigation of social networking sites in the context of cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) has been scarce.
Methods:
Real-time data posted during 2 weeks in April 2017 were collected from 2 existing private Facebook groups (hosted by the Cleft Lip and Palate Association United Kingdom) using video screen capture software. The number of posts, comments, unique contributors, and post “likes” was recorded, as well as the type and theme of each post. Data relating to the benefits and challenges of participation in the 2 groups were also collected via an online survey.
Results:
A content analysis of real-time data identified perioperative care, associated syndromes, and dental health to be particular areas of concern for parents/caregivers. Expectations, experiences, and outcomes of further treatment were key topics of discussion for adults with CL/P. Common benefits of the groups included the ability to connect with others, learn about local events, give and receive emotional support, and obtain quick responses to queries in a semi-anonymous environment. Disadvantages of the groups included a reliance upon opinion rather than medical fact and the frequent use of inappropriate terminology.
Conclusions:
Social networking sites appear to be a helpful source of health-related information and peer support for the CL/P population, yet closer monitoring of these groups may be required.
BartlettYKCoulsonNS. An investigation into the empowerment effects of using online support groups and how this affects health professional/patient communication. Patient Edu Couns. 2011;83(1):113–119.
2.
BenderJLJimenez-MarroquinMCJadadAR. Seeking support on Facebook: a content analysis of breast cancer groups. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e16.
3.
BogartKRHemmeschAR. Benefits of support conferences for parents of and people with Moebius syndrome. Stigma and Health, 2016;1:109–121.
4.
British Psychological Society. Ethics Guidelines for Internet-Mediated Research. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society; 2017.
5.
BroderHTrierWC. Effectiveness of genetic counselling for families with craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate J. 1985;22(3):157–162.
CohenSWillsTA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bulletin. 1985;98(2):310–357.
8.
CookSARosserRMeahSJamesMISalmonP. Clinical decision guidelines for NHS cosmetic surgery: analysis of current limitations and recommendations for future development. Br Assoc Plast Surg. 2003;56(5):429–436.
9.
CRANE Database. Annual Report on Cleft Lip and/or Palate 2016. London, UK: Royal College of Surgeons; 2016.
10.
DouglasL. Establishing an antenatal group for families with a diagnosis of cleft lip. Community Pract. 2012;85(6):20–23.
11.
FarmerADBruckner HoltCEMCookMJHearingSD. Social networking sites: a novel portal for communication. Postgrad Med J. 2009;85(1007):455–459.
12.
FeragenKBStockNM. When there is more than a cleft: psychological adjustment when a cleft is associated with an additional condition. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(1):5–14.
13.
GolderSAhmedSNormanGBoothA. Attitudes toward the ethics of research using social media: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(6):e195.
14.
GoodeAEllisRCoutinhoWPartridgeJ. Public Attitudes Survey. London, UK: Changing Faces; 2008.
15.
GreeneJAChoudryNKKilabukEShrankWH. Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with Facebook. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;26(3):287–292.
16.
HoltzPKronbergerNWagnerW. Analysing internet forums: a practice guide. J Media Psychol. 2012;24(2):55–66.
17.
Kapp-SimonKMcGuireDELongBCSimonDJ. Addressing quality of life issues in adolescents: social skills interventions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):45–50.
18.
KhouriJSMcCheyneMJ, Morrison CS. #Cleft: the use of social media amongst parents of infants with cleft [published online ahead of print]. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018:16156.
19.
KlemmPBunnellDCullenMSonejiRGibbonsPHolecekA. Online cancer support groups: a review of the research literature. Comput Inform Nurs. 2003;21(3):136–142.
LakeyBOrehekE. Relational regulation theory: a new approach to explain the link between perceived social support and mental health. Psychol Rev. 2011;118(3):482–495.
22.
LaucknerHMHutchinsonSL. Peer support for people with chronic conditions in rural areas: a scoping review. Rural Remote Health. 2016;16(1):3601.
23.
LazarusRSFolkmanS. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY: Springer; 1984.
24.
LiKCBirchPHGarrettBMMacPheeMAdamSFriedmanJM. Parents’ perspectives on supporting their decision making in genome-wide sequencing. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2016;48(3):265–275.
25.
LombardMSnyder-DuchJCampanella BrackenC. Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Comm Res. 2002;28(4):587–604.
26.
MahlkeCKramerUMBeckerTBockT. Peer support in mental health services. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2014;27(4):276–281.
27.
MerolliMGrayKMartin-SanchezF. Health outcomes and related effects of using social media in chronic disease management: a literature review and analysis of affordances. J Biomed Infomatics. 2013;46(6):957–969.
28.
MonlleóILGil-da-Silva-LopesVL. Brazil’s craniofacial project: genetic evaluation and counselling in the reference network for craniofacial treatment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):577–579.
29.
NelsonPGlennyAMKirkSCaressAL. Parents’ experiences of caring for a child with a cleft lip and/or palate: a review of the literature. Child Care Health Dev. 2012;38(1):6–20.
PauschNCWinterKHalamaDWirtzCYildirimVSirintawatN. Psychosocial acceptance of cleft patients: has something changed?Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;20(1):19–26.
32.
PetersonCMaierSFSeligmanMEP. Learned Helplessness: A Theory for the Age of Personal Control. Oxford, UK; Oxford University Press: 1993.
33.
RumseyNHarcourtD. Body image and disfigurement: issues and interventions. Body Image. 2004;1(1):83–97.
34.
SmallridgeJHallAJChorbachiRParfectVPerssonMIrelandAJWillsAKNessARSandyJR. Functional outcomes in the cleft care UK study—part 3: oral health and audiology. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):25–35.
StockNMFeragenKBRumseyN.“It doesn’t all just stop at 18”: psychological adjustment and support needs of adults born with cleft lip and/or palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(5):543–554.
37.
StockNMFeragenKB. Psychological adjustment to cleft lip and/or palate: a narrative review of the literature. Psychol Health. 2016;31(7):777–813.
38.
StockNMFeragenKBRumseyN. Adults’ narratives of growing up with a cleft lip and/or palate: factors associated with psychological adjustment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(2):222–239.
39.
TiemensKBeveridgeHLNicholasDB. Evaluation of a therapeutic camp program for adolescents with a facial difference. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(1):44–46.
40.
TullyCShneiderCMonaghanMHilliardMEStreisandR. Peer coaching interventions for parents of children with type 1 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2017;17(6):39.
41.
van Uden-KraanCFDrossaertCHCTaalEShawBRSeydelERvan de LaarMAFJ. 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.
