A Guide to Using Asynchronous Remote Communities (ARC) for Researching Distributed Populations

Macleod, Hamish; Jelen, Ben; Prabhakar, Annu Sible; Oehlberg, Lora; Siek, Katie A.; Connelly, Kay

doi:10.4108/eai.18-7-2017.152898

Cited by 37 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike MacLeod et al [4], we found that participants were less likely to complete free text activities that allowed them to remain on the platform. Instead, surveys had better overall completion rates (c.f.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 96%

“…Activities can be private, such as completing a survey off Facebook, or public, such as discussing a post. MacLeod et al [4] piloted the ARC method with people with rare diseases to gain a deeper understanding of their challenges and needs. The method has also been used successfully for pregnant women and new mothers [6] and people living with HIV [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Facebook for Support versus Facebook for Research

Alqassim

Kresnye

Siek

et al. 2019

Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers use Asynchronous Remote Communities (ARC) to reach out to target populations who may find it hard to meet in person, or make time for telephone interviews. So far, ARC studies have been conducted using closed and secure groups on Facebook, because most participants are active members of this social network. However, it is not clear how participants' Facebook usage might affect their engagement with an ARC study. In this paper, we report a secondary analysis of a recent ARC study of women who had experienced at least one miscarriage that focused on their information and social support needs. We find participants tend to be comfortable with seeking emotional support on Facebook, and even those who say they rarely post to Facebook engage with most group activities. We discuss implications for choosing platforms for ARC studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facebook for Support versus Facebook for Research

Alqassim

Kresnye

Siek

et al. 2019

Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, co-located methods (where researchers and participants are physically present together) are not possible because of access, mobility, physical, social, political, and economic constraints. In addition, researchers may not be in a location with access to the target population -for example when a research team with limited resources needs to accommodate the perspective of people with rare diseases in a health system design, since only 10% of the world's population has a rare disease, the research team must utilize alternative methods to gain their perspective [12]. We found that sociotechnical researchers are overcoming these barriers to gain a deeper sense of people's needs by studying how people currently appropriate social media to discuss their health.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MacLeod et al developed the Asynchronous Remote Communities (ARC) method that builds on remote needs assessment methods, which has included instant messaging [29], email [30], phone [30], and video [31] interviewing methods. They qualitatively investigated the needs of people with rare diseases by engaging 11 participants in a 22-week study on a private Facebook group [12,16,17]. The researchers found that online communities provided invaluable support, but participants needed more tangible support.…”

Section: Appropriating Mainstream Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding Human Computer Interaction Methods to Understand User Needs in the Design Process of Personal Health Systems

Siek

2018

Yearb Med Inform

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The medical informatics community is encouraged to ensure that we are designing health technology for all individuals - including underrepresented and underserved populations - by investigating the complex needs of target users. This paper summarizes the novel ways researchers have explored target populations via social media and engaged populations as part of the design team. Medical informaticians should continue investigating the soundness of these methods by comparing the design outcomes with currently utilized user-centered methods and to report on unintended consequences.

show abstract

“…The sample size was determined based on previous studies of asynchronous remote community research, with studies ranging from 13 participants to 48 participants (21)(22)(23)(24)(25). As the secret Facebook group takes place over a longer period of time, a larger group of participants can be accommodated in comparison to an in-person focus group or an online synchronous focus group (25).…”

Section: Participants and Recruitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel research method for workshops and co-production of interventions: using a secret Facebook group

Buelo

Kirk

Jepson

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Co-production of interventions is reliant on good communication and consensus between participants and researchers but attending in-person meetings and workshops is hard for time-constrained groups such as new mums, who may be geographically dispersed without reliable transport. Discussions with a lay advisory group resulted in the decision to hold a workshop over a secret Facebook group. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility a secret Facebook group for co-production activities. In the example presented, the population was women with previous gestational diabetes; the topic was physical inactivity; and the purpose was to develop an acceptable physical activity intervention.Methods: The researchers created a secret Facebook group with content similar to an in-person workshop that sequentially progressed to develop a programme theory for an intervention. The researcher posted 1-2 times per day for 14 days and members of the group were invited to comment and discuss the content. Feasibility and acceptability of the group analysed using Facebook analytics and a post-workshop survey.Results: Twenty-one participants took part. In total, 521 comments were provided in response to 18 posts of varying types (average = 28.9 comments per post). The total word count of participant comments was 21,142 words. The workshop was viewed positively, with 20 of 21 participants saying they liked the workshop ‘somewhat’ or ‘a great deal’, and felt the group was a safe and open environment to share opinions. When asked if they would take part in something like this again, 15 of 21 said “Yes”. Participants mentioned the format was convenient; it allowed them to reflect on their experiences and they liked helping research progress. Those who say “maybe” said it was difficult finding time and depended on what else was going on.Conclusion: Using a secret Facebook group as a method of co-production or as a workshop in the research process is a feasible and acceptable method. Social media holds significant potential for co-production and involvement in research for populations who are geographically dispersed or time-constrained; with an uncommon condition; or other circumstances where in-person meetings are either not appropriate or not possible.

show abstract

A Guide to Using Asynchronous Remote Communities (ARC) for Researching Distributed Populations

Cited by 37 publications

References 35 publications

Facebook for Support versus Facebook for Research

Facebook for Support versus Facebook for Research

Expanding Human Computer Interaction Methods to Understand User Needs in the Design Process of Personal Health Systems

A novel research method for workshops and co-production of interventions: using a secret Facebook group

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About