A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community

By Diane Maloney-Krichmar, J. Preece. TCHI, 2005

489 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Health, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9de2f475a30ce2ba800b6a75e9c8620df95d2a3a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Health

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Non-public and public online community participation: Needs, attitudes and behavior (2006, background): “Work by other researchers also supports our finding; an in-depth ethnographic study of a patient support community found that people who met face-to-face often did so only to discuss their medical problem which was, in most cases, an insufficient basis for the relationship to continue to develop off”
Medicine 2.0: Social Networking, Collaboration, Participation, Apomediation, and Openness (2008, unknown): “TOPIC: BUILDING VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES AND SOCIAL NETWORKING APPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.....6 Asklepios: The CMA's new social networking site for Canadian physicians............................6 10:00 AM - 10:30 AM IN MARS AUDITORIUM....6 TOPIC: BUILDING VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES AND SOCIAL NETWOR”
The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations (2012, background): “Indeed, small changes in the design of social media tools and policies around them can be vital to their success and failure (Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, 2005; Preece, 2000).”
Content Analysis: A Flexible Methodology (2006, methodology): “Agosto 40 library trends/summer 2006 and Hughes-Hassell (2005) mention NVivo; Marsh (2002) uses Atlas-TI; White (1998) and Kracker and Wang (2002) use QSR NUD*IST, renamed, in its latest version, as QSR N6.”
Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community (2011, background): “Humorous exchanges (more than 5% of all messages) are also important in forming stronger social connections (Braithwaite, Waldron, & Finn, 1999; Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, 2005).”
Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic literature review of empirical studies (2015, methodology): “Other suggestions include reliable software, supporting subgroup formation, a clear statement of the community purpose, and particularly for health support groups, credible and trustworthy informational resources (Maloney-Krichmar & Preece, 2005).”
Online Communities: Design, Theory, and Practice (2005, background): “Pioneers of online community development and research Howard Rheingold (1993) and Roxanne Hiltz (1985) used the term 'online community' to connote the intense feelings of camaraderie, empathy and support that they observed among people in the online spaces they studied.”
It's not that i don't have problems, i'm just not putting them on facebook: challenges and opportunities in using online social networks for health (2011, background): “Previous research has found that OHCs offer patients opportunities for emotional support when dealing with difficult health issues [7,18].”
Social commerce: The transfer of power from sellers to buyers (2015, background): “PLS-SEM is a soundmethod to assess the reliability and validity of research constructs (McLureWasko and Faraj, 2005).”
Building Member Attachment in Online Communities: Applying Theories of Group Identity and Interpersonal Bonds (2012, background): “Online communities also provide the general public with useful information (Gu et al. 2007; Wasko and Faraj 2005), emotional support (Maloney-Krichmar and Preece 2005), venues for political and social discussion (Hill and Hughes 1998), and ways to maintain their social networks and meet new people…”
Usability and Sociability in Online Communities: A Comparative Study of Knowledge Seeking and Contribution (2009, methodology): “The sociotechnical framework highlights usability and sociability as two corresponding perceived characteristics of a community system that may promote members’ participation, both in terms of seeking and contribution (Maloney-Krichmar and Preece, 2005; Preece, 2001).”