4.6 Article

SHARING IS CARING: SOCIAL SUPPORT PROVISION AND COMPANIONSHIP ACTIVITIES IN HEALTHCARE VIRTUAL SUPPORT COMMUNITIES

期刊

MIS QUARTERLY
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 395-+

出版社

SOC INFORM MANAGE-MIS RES CENT
DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2019/13225

关键词

Social capital theory; social support; healthcare virtual support communities; HVSCs; automated content analysis; text mining; emotional support; informational support; companionship activity

资金

  1. Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)
  2. Fonds de Recherche du Quebec-Societe et Culture (FRQSC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individuals increasingly rely on healthcare virtual support communities (HVSCs) for social support and companionship. While research provides interesting insights into the drivers of informational support in knowledge-sharing virtual communities, there is limited research on the antecedents of emotional support provision and companionship activities in HVSCs. The unique characteristics of HVSCs also justify the need to reexamine members' voluntary provisions of help in such communities. This paper develops a model that examines the relationships between the structural, relational, and cognitive dimensions of social capital and the provision of informational and emotional support, and engagement in companionship activities in HVSCs. The model is tested based on data generated through an automated method that classifies and analyzes user-generated text in three healthcare virtual support communities (breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer). The results show that all three dimensions of social capital impact the provision of emotional support; both structural and relational capital facilitate engagement in companionship activities; and only cognitive capital enables the provision of informational support. Research and practical implications on the need to facilitate informational and emotional support provision and companionship activities in healthcare virtual support communities are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据