In a 2011 study* it was found few patients end up participating in organized support groups. ~10% go to face-to-face groups and 4% go online.
However, more than 50% of patients do contact a peer they know. They have a slightly positive attitude toward being in a support group, with the advantage being “sharing experiences” and “finding recognition.”
How might one increase participation, in particular with online support? The study discusses some possibilities.
Being able to classify your members into different types is a handy way to make sure each is getting what they need. It may also help one see what sort of mix is best for their community. (Note: Most taxonomies are fraught with complexities, so YMMV)
D Ganley, et al (*) puts forth the following kinds of members: Utility Posters, Team Players, Low Profiles, Story Tellers, and Ghosts.
Recognize anyone?
Who are these people? What might a community consist of, and how could we cater to these different types of members? D Ganley, et al go into more details-
The Great Good Place. Just started this book by Ray Oldenburg. Looking forward to leveraging real life places with what can be done in online communities.
At first glance having strong community leaders might seem like a good way to get people to participate. However, T Zhou finds* that far stronger determinates are when an individual feels they belong to a group and that it shares their values.
For community managers:
B Butler found* that large, active, groups were able to attract more members. However, they also lost more. While more activity helped retain members, it was not as powerful as group size.
For a Community manager, my takeaways were:
