Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Caregiving can affect people of all ages and can have significant negative health impacts on family caregivers themselves. Research has shown that social support acts as a buffer against many negative health impacts. A common source of social support is support groups. Although traditionally, these groups were conducted in a face-to-face setting, the advent of the internet, social media applications, and the smartphone have seen online support groups (OSGs) develop as a space where many caregivers seek support. The number of OSGs has increased exponentially, but there is no clear consensus on what factors or characteristics of OSGs contribute to social support development within them or what types of OSGs are available to family caregivers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a scoping review to contribute to the understanding of the types and characteristics of OSGs for family caregivers. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, the CINAHL, PsychInfo, Psych Articles, Social Sciences, Communication Source, Medline, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies (caregiver focused, adults aged 18 years or older, online social support groups, caring for a living person, peer-reviewed journal publications on empirical research). In total, 19 studies were included in the review. The research questions were (1) what type of social support groups are online for adult family caregivers, (2) what the communication mediums and characteristics of these OSGs are, and (3) what psychosocial or other factors make OSGs successful or unsuccessful for participants. RESULTS: In response to the first research question, we found that the majority of OSGs took place on public text-based forums and were illness specific. Where demographics were reported, participants were predominately women, White, and working with university-level education. There were a variety of caregiving relationships. For the second research question, the most common communication medium found was text-based communication, with the use of emojis, photos, and GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) files as part of these exchanges. Most frequently, the OSGs were asynchronous with a degree of anonymity, not time-limited by the frequency of contact or duration, and moderated by peer or professional moderators or facilitators. Results for the third research question explored the overarching categories of safe communication and engagement and group management. These described successful OSGs as having a focus on similar others with shared lived experiences communicated in a nonjudgmental space overseen by trained peer or professional facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: There are several key considerations for OSGs to be successful for family caregivers. A general recommendation for practitioners is to give importance to building active moderation and multifaceted structures of support to meet different levels of caregiver needs and the ability to engage.
Daynes‐Kearney et al. (Wed,) studied this question.