The impact of group composition on Internet support groups: Homogeneous versus heterogeneous Parkinson's groups.

Abstract

We hypothesized that (a) members of homogeneous Parkinson's disease (PD) Internet groups would show more commitment and attraction than heterogeneous groups and (b) members in homogeneous groups would show better outcomes. Six PD support groups, three heterogeneous and 3 homogeneous groups were composed on the basis of age and time since diagnosis. Cohesion, based on commitment and attraction, was measured using text analysis software measuring (a) the frequency of hope, positive feelings and thoughts, and affection linked to group as a target and (b) the frequency of "we," "our," and other words of inclusion. Pre-post changes were measured by depression, quality of life, and severity of PD. Multivariate analysis found that homogeneously composed groups were significantly more attracted and committed to their groups. A repeated measures multivariate analysis found that homogeneous groups showed significantly greater positive changes.

“You Have to be Positive.” Social Support Processes of an Online Support Group for Men Living with HIV

“…Data from Lieberman et al (2005) and the current study suggest that we should look at elements of support group interaction that have previously been overlooked. Goldsmith (2004, p. 86) noted that the ''common research practice of attending only to functional types of support (ignoring their content, form, and style) severely limits our ability to understand how effective enacted support is fitted to the problem for which it is offered.''…”

Invented fairy tales in groups with onco‐haematological children

“…In particular the group was ‘homogeneous’ as to age and illness to emphasize the role and importance of peer support and the engagement to the group (Lieberman et al . ).…”

“…At every meeting, in a room ad hoc, there were on average six children who thus made up a small group to empower the quality of group experience (Aubé et al 2011). In particular the group was 'homogeneous' as to age and illness to emphasize the role and importance of peer support and the engagement to the group (Lieberman et al 2005).…”

Overcoming our resistances to “Doing” evidence‐based group practice: a commentary

“…This largely untested assumption is that groups are most effective when they are composed of group members who are homogeneous for diagnosis. The research on the effects of homogeneously versus heterogeneously composed groups suggests that homogeneous groups sometimes (e.g., Lieberman, Wizlenberg, & Golant, 2005) but not always (Wade & Goldman, 2006) develop higher levels of cohesion and have better outcomes. Burlingame, Fuhriman, & Mosier (2003) used a meta-analysis to examine the affects of homogeneity versus heterogeneity in client problem type in composing groups.…”