text:
Participatory Medicine & E-Patients (567)
Published on 14.2.2013 in Vol 15 , No 2 (2013) :February
Web 2.0 Chronic Disease Self-Management for Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Michael Stellefson 1 ; Beth Chaney 1 ; Adam E. Barry 1 ; Enmanuel Chavarria 1 ; Bethany Tennant 1 ; Kim Walsh-Childers 2 ; P.S. Sriram 3 ; Justin Zagora 4
Michael Stellefson1, PhD;
Beth Chaney1, PhD;
Adam E Barry1, PhD;
Enmanuel Chavarria1;
Bethany Tennant1;
Kim Walsh-Childers2, PhD;
P.S Sriram3, MD;
Justin Zagora4
1Center for Digital Health and Wellness, Department of Health Education and Behavior, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
2Department of Journalism, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
3Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
4Department of Health Education and Behavior, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
Michael Stellefson, PhD
Center for Digital Health and Wellness
Department of Health Education and Behavior
FLG 8
Gainesville, FL, 32611
Email: mstellefson@ufl.edu
Background: Participatory Web 2.0 interventions promote collaboration to support chronic disease self-management. Growth in Web 2.0 interventions has led to the emergence of e-patient communication tools that enable older adults to (1) locate and share disease management information and (2) receive interactive healthcare advice. The evolution of older e-patients contributing to Web 2.0 health and medical forums has led to greater opportunities for achieving better chronic disease outcomes. To date, there are no review articles investigating the planning, implementation, and evaluation of Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management interventions for older adults.
Objective: To review the planning, implementation, and overall effectiveness of Web 2.0 self-management interventions for older adults (mean age ≥ 50) with one or more chronic disease(s).
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using six popular health science databases. The RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) model was used to organize findings and compute a study quality score (SQS) for 15 reviewed articles.
Results: Most interventions were adopted for delivery by multidisciplinary healthcare teams and tested among small samples of white females with diabetes. Studies indicated that Web 2.0 participants felt greater self-efficacy for managing their disease(s) and benefitted from communicating with health care providers and/or website moderators to receive feedback and social support. Participants noted asynchronous communication tools (eg, email, discussion boards) and progress tracking features (eg, graphical displays of uploaded personal data) as being particularly useful for self-management support. Despite high attrition being noted as problematic, this review suggests that greater Web 2.0 engagement may be associated with improvements in health behaviors (eg, physical activity) and health status (eg, HRQoL). However, few studies indicated statistically significant improvements in medication adherence, biological outcomes, or health care utilization. Mean SQS scores were notably low (mean=63%, SD 18%). Studies were judged to be weakest on the Maintenance dimension of RE-AIM; 13 reviewed studies (87%) did not describe any measures taken to sustain Web 2.0 effects past designated study time periods. Detailed process and impact evaluation frameworks were also missing in almost half (n=7) of the reviewed interventions.
Conclusions: There is need for a greater understanding of the costs and benefits associated with using patient-centered Web 2.0 technologies for chronic disease self-management. More research is needed to determine whether the long-term effectiveness of these programs is sustainable among larger, more diverse samples of chronically ill patients. The effective translation of new knowledge, social technologies, and engagement techniques will likely result in novel approaches for empowering, engaging, and educating older adults with chronic disease.
chronic disease; self-care; internet; social media
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly half of all adults in the United States are living with at least one chronic health condition [1]. Globally, chronic diseases such as heart disease, chronic respiratory illness, and diabetes are by far the leading cause of death, topping most all-cause morbidity lists [2]. As a result, chronic disease care accounts for eighty cents of every health care dollar spent (80%) of total health care expenditures [1]. By 2015, it is estimated that 7 of every 10 (70%) adults aged 50-64 will have been diagnosed with at least one chronic condition, with nearly half living with two or more chronic conditions [3].
Among individuals with chronic disease, the use of the Internet as a "first stop" for health information has increased steadily [4]. Even after controlling for various demographic factors such as age and education, Internet users living with chronic disease are slightly more likely than other Internet users to access health information online and more likely to share acquired health information with others [5]. Considering that more than 2 of every 4 (50%) adults aged 65 and older are now using the Internet or email [6], and 7 in 10 (70%) Internet users 65 and older go online daily [6], Internet-mediated chronic disease self-management and self-monitoring interventions may exhibit great potential to reach a broad population of chronically ill older patients [7-9].
Chronic Disease Patients and Social Networking
Older adults remain strongly connected to offline sources of medical assistance and advice [5]. This is especially true for Americans 65 and older, of whom only 53% used the Internet and only 34% used any social networking site as of spring 2012 [10]. An earlier report in 2011, however, showed Internet use to be significantly more common among adults 50-64 years old, with 78% online, 58% seeking health information on the Web, and 47% using social networking sites [11]. Research shows that the most common explanation offered by those who do not use the Internet is the perception that the Internet is irrelevant to them; they can meet information and communication needs in other ways and see no point in going online [12]. Among older adults, another major reason for less frequent use of the Web, including social media, is lack of access to high-speed Internet connections. While 60% of adults aged 50-64 have broadband access at home, the figure falls to 30% for those 65 and older [12]. Blogging and online health discussion forums are the two most popular social networking activities for people living with chronic disease, primarily because these activities allow an Internet user to dive deeply into a health topic without the need for advanced technical knowledge sometimes associated with using social media/networking applications such as Twitter or Facebook [5].
Nonetheless, use of social networking among older adults is growing [6]. Approximately 1 in 3 (34%) older Internet users access social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, and approximately 1 in 5 (20%) of these users contributes to these sites regularly by tagging, categorizing, or commenting on online health/medical content [5,6]. Patients increasingly have begun to use the Web as a communication tool, instead of simply an information vending machine [13]. Older adults, in particular, are willing to share self-care information within selected social networks for the purpose of giving and receiving disease-specific self-management information [14]. The evolution of e-patient communities has led to greater opportunities for knowledge acquisition and social support, leading to improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [7-9,15,16].
Transitioning from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 in Chronic Disease Management
Traditionally, public health experts have provided chronic disease information in static form through Web 1.0 interventions, which primarily make written and audio materials available online [17-19]. The use of these eHealth interventions has shown potential to improve health outcomes cost-effectively [15,20-23]. The rapid growth in adoption of Web 2.0 technologies, as documented above, suggests that participatory Internet interventions can help older individuals with chronic diseases become actively engaged in their own health care [15,20,21]. Controlling for age, education, and type of Internet access, living with chronic disease increases the likelihood of contributing to or consuming user-generated health content such as blog posts, hospital or doctor reviews, and podcasts [5,24]. Moreover, online discussion boards provide an open-access space for chronic disease patients to exchange information and learn about how to control disease exacerbations [25-28]. Additionally, available evidence shows that online self-help groups can enhance social capital in ways that do not undermine, and might in some cases strengthen, hyperpersonal connections between patients and providers [29-31].
Multimedia-sharing software enables chronic disease patients to share disease management videos, wikis, and podcasts without the need for advanced technical knowledge. Teleconferencing tools such as Skype provide intimate, two-way communication channels for patients and providers to share information, provide emotional support, and offer practical disease management advice from a distance [32]. These types of social software promote collaboration between patients, caregivers, and practitioners, leading to marked shifts in how patient education for chronic disease management [33].
Current Investigation
Given that older adults suffering from chronic disease are becoming more likely participate in Web 2.0 e-patient communication, it is surprising to note the paucity of formal evaluations examining use of Internet-mediated information and communication technologies (ICTs) among older adults. Specifically, there are no review articles that investigate the planning, implementation, and/or effectiveness of Web 2.0 self-management interventions among older adults with various chronic diseases. Consequently, few evidence-based recommendations exist regarding the development of Web 2.0 interventions for this vulnerable population [34]. A synthesis of the empirical evidence regarding the benefits and limitations of Web 2.0 interventions can enhance the transferability and translational potential of participatory technologies designed for healthy aging. Because of this emergent need, the primary objective of this study was to systematically review the planning, implementation, and overall effectiveness of Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management interventions delivered to older adults living with chronic disease.
First, it is important to operationalize several terms that informed our literature screening process. Web 2.0 was defined as the technical, aesthetic, and functional criteria established to enable collaboration and sharing of information between users on the Internet [35]. A chronic disease was defined as a prolonged illness not resolving spontaneously or becoming cured completely, causing nonreversible pathological alteration and residual disability [1]. We specifically searched for studies examining selected chronic diseases (eg, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), arthritis, hypertension and diabetes) known to be pervasive worldwide [2]; however, studies of individuals with other chronic diseases were included if they met other search criteria. A chronic disease self-management intervention was defined as a program specifically designed to train patients to live with their chronic condition by teaching them behaviors to promote self-care and/or foster self-confidence in long-term self-management capability [36,37].
Search Procedures
Because Web 2.0 formally emerged in the research literature in 2004 [38], only manuscripts published in English from January 2004 to October 2012 were considered. The searched databases included: ERIC, PsychINFO, PubMed, Academic Search Premiere, CINAHL Plus, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts. Search methodology included entering various combinations of key search terms into each database, using controlled vocabulary with the Boolean operators AND and OR. The search terms included: chronic disease, chronic illness, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, COPD, self-care, self-management, outcome, internet, and website. The terms "older adult" or "elderly" were not included as search terms to prevent unintentional exclusion of studies examining adults aged 50 and older, the age cutoff previously used by international health organizations [39]. Following the literature search, reference lists for each eligible study were reviewed for additional articles.
The experimental unit of analysis in this review was studies of Web 2.0 interventions administered to adults 50 and older (mean age ≥ 50), living with one or more chronic disease(s). Articles had to describe the planning, implementation, and impact of the intervention by measuring either process (eg, attitudes, self-efficacy, social support), functional (eg, health behavior, participants' subjective experience of functioning), and/or clinical (eg, morbidity, mortality, HRQoL) outcomes. To minimize the risk of assessment bias, 2 trained researchers documented the literature search at each step of the screening process by tracking results generated within each database search. Titles and abstracts of each study were assessed independently by 1 reviewer and checked by the second. Disagreements between reviewers were discussed and resolved by consensus after referring to the search protocol. A third qualified reviewer in eHealth communication was consulted to resolve any discrepancies before data were extracted.
Study Quality Score
We also assessed the extent to which each study minimized bias and maximized internal and external validity to obtain an indicator of study quality using the RE-AIM evaluation framework [40]. The extracted data from the retained studies were evaluated according to the five dimensions of RE-AIM: Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance [40]. Reach refers to the percentage and risk characteristics of individuals who participate in an intervention and how representative they are of the population being considered. Effectiveness concerns both the intended or positive outcomes of an intervention on targeted outcomes (eg, process, functional, and clinical) and the possible negative or unintended consequences on quality of life and nontargeted outcomes. Adoption is characterized as the participation rate and representativeness of both the settings in which an intervention is conducted (eg, doctor's offices, communities) and the intervention staff who deliver the intervention (eg, physicians, health educators). Implementation refers to the extent to which an intervention is delivered consistently across different components of staff over time. Maintenance, at the individual level, describes the long-term results of an intervention (≥6 months following intervention contact) among participants; at the setting level, it refers to either the short-term continuation or long-term institutionalization of an intervention once the research project and its supports are withdrawn [41].
RE-AIM can help media developers create practical products that are more likely to be widely adopted, feasible in medical practice, and able to produce public health impact. The framework has been successfully applied to evaluate the impact of interactive technology approaches [42]. For example, a focus on the reach of individuals who engage with technology and the robustness of intervention effects is crucial to designing self-management support systems that use appropriate multimedia aids to help all patients, particularly those from low-literate populations. In addition, self-management support is enhanced by focusing on factors such as adoption, implementation, and sustainability to provide actionable information [42].
To develop a unique assessment instrument for this evaluation task, we assembled quality items from a number of systematic review guides [43-46]. Reach was assessed by analyzing the representativeness of our sample by evaluating the sampling frame, screening criteria, and response rate using items from the Guide to Community Preventive Services: Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based Recommendations [43] and the Effective Public Health Practice Project [44]. To assess efficacy, we used a variety of validated items [43-46] to assess the suitability of study design, credibility of data collection, program evaluation, and statistical analyses. We also created two new items to evaluate how missing data were handled as well as whether P values and effect sizes were reported.
Adoption was assessed at both the setting and staff levels. At the setting level, we assessed the short-term feasibility of delivering the program and whether the Web 2.0 intervention was incorporated into the existing structure of the sponsoring institution or organization. At the staff level, we assessed if the project manager possessed adequate expertise and whether stakeholder feedback was collected among program staff members. Implementation was assessed by evaluating Web 2.0 uptake to determine web accessibility, participation adherence [44], and duration (dosage) and intensity of participant exposure to the Web 2.0 intervention. In addition, to assess intervention development and program integration, we administered items from the Intervention Development and Implementation subscales of the Preffi 2.0 health promotion quality assessment package [46], along with one item we created for evaluating use of incentives (eg, gift cards) for participation. Maintenance was assessed at the setting and participant levels. At the setting level, we assessed the contextual conditions and long-term feasibility of each reviewed study using the Contextual Conditions and Feasibility subscale of the Preffi 2.0 package [46]; we added one item to determine whether policies were developed to institutionalize Web 2.0 in practice. At the participant level, we created new items based on RE-AIM evaluation criteria [41] to assess whether positive intervention effects were observed at ≥ 6 months or ≥ 1 year. We also assessed whether long-term attrition remained at or below 30% at follow-up.
Multimedia Appendix 1 lists of all quality criteria measures (with scale origins and ranges) that were used to evaluate each study, and Multimedia Appendix 2 lists the actual items (with response options and codes) organized by RE-AIM dimensions. Overall, there were 38 total items programmed into an online data extraction rubric that was built to input data from this quality assessment. This tool was pilot tested by the research team on one manuscript that was not included in the final group of reviewed studies. Following the pilot test, minor modifications were made to the format and wording to improve clarity and accuracy. Scores on these items were summed to compute a raw study quality score (SQS) (range = 1 to 61) for each retained study. To interpret this aggregated total score, each raw score was transformed by dividing it into the total possible score (61) and then multiplying it by 100 to obtain a percentage score for each study that ranged from 0% to 100%. Higher percentage scores on the SQS were indicative of higher quality study design.
The research team also classified Web 2.0 implementation characteristics including design (ie, technical, information architecture, aesthetic, and functional), interactivity (ie, synchronous or asynchronous communication), and content (ie, disease management information, web content) described within each reviewed study. We then analyzed which Web 2.0 intervention qualities were associated with targeted outcomes (eg, process, functional, and clinical) and possible negative or unintended consequences of the intervention on HRQoL and nontargeted outcomes.
Figure 1 illustrates the three-round process used to select articles from the initial pool of 3820 articles identified. Eliminating manuscripts that were not relevant (n=3694) left 126 articles with another 6 identified through reference list scans. Eight articles were unavailable through the institutional e-library database leaving 124 to screen. During the initial review, articles were excluded for these reasons: insufficient details on research design and delivery (n=24); web program not being used by a chronic disease patient (n=14); or manuscripts written in a language other than English (n=2). The secondary wave of exclusion was completed following a full-text review of the remaining 84 articles. Forty-one of these articles were deemed ineligible due to reporting incomplete research protocols (n=11), participants not meeting the pre-specified age range (n=10), or because they involved only a noninteractive Web 1.0 interface (n=20). The secondary exclusion left 43 articles for final review. The final wave of exclusion resulted in 28 additional articles being excluded because they lacked any process, functional or clinical outcome assessments (n=11), or because they provided little detail on Web 2.0 components included within the intervention (n=17). These procedures produced 15 articles that met our inclusion criteria.
The final sample of studies were published in a variety of peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Medical Internet Research [47-51], CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing [52], Telemedicine and e-Health [53,54], Diabetes Care [55,56], The Diabetes Educator [57], Patient Education and Counseling [58], Arthritis & Rheumatism [59], Health Education and Behavior [60], and Journal of Pain and Symptom Management [61]. Included articles had been published between 2005 and 2012, with the majority (n=10 or 67%), published in 2010 or later.
Multimedia Appendix 3 describes the primary characteristics of interest (authorship, study purpose, sample size, and RE-AIM attributes) in each retained study. Multimedia Appendix 4 reports the SQSs for each reviewed study on each RE-AIM dimension and subdimension. On a scale from 1 to 61, the raw SQSs for all reviewed studies ranged from 16 (26%) to 52 (85%). The mean raw SQS score of all reviewed studies was 38.33 (SD 10.43), which corresponded to a mean SQS score of 63% (SD 18%), which was notably low. Only four studies [51,56,58,59] scored 80% or above on the SQS scale.
Figure 1. Stem-tree illustrating manuscript selection process using various search databases and combinations of controlled vocabulary.
In the following, we report on results from the reviewed studies with respect to each aspect of the RE-AIM framework.
Reach Characteristics
Representativeness
Eight studies examined individuals with diabetes [48-51,55-58], with four (n=4) studies specifically targeting type 2 diabetes [49,51,56,58]. Two studies examined individuals with COPD [47,61], and two investigated patients with arthritis or related musculoskeletal disorders [54,59]. Three (n=3) other studies were designed for individuals suffering from one or more chronic condition(s) [52,53,60]. The mean SQS score on the Reach dimension was 2.33 (SD 0.62) on a scale from 0 to 3.
Participation Rate and Country
Sample sizes ranged from n=18 participants in a qualitative feasibility study [53] to n=855 participants in one randomized controlled trial (RCT) [59]. Eight studies had more than 250 participants, while six studies reported n≤100. Eleven of the reviewed studies enrolled primarily White participants, ranging from 67% (181 of 270 participants) to 97% (38 of 39 participants) of total sample sizes. A little more than half of the reviewed studies (n=8) consisted of mainly White females [48,50,52,53,56,57,59,60]. Across all reviewed studies, the mean age of participants ranged from 52 to 69 years. Studies took place in several countries; twelve in the United States, and one each in Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands.
Empirical Effectiveness
Theoretical Framework and Research Design
Eleven (n=11) studies were RCTs [47-50,52,55-58,60,61], while five adopted a randomized cluster [54], quasi-experimental [60], cross-sectional [51], or qualitative [53] design. Constructs from the social cognitive theory (eg, self-efficacy) were used in eight studies [47,50,54,56,57,59-61], while the social ecological theory and the 5 As (assess, advise, agree, assist, and arrange) self-management model were used in two studies [49,58]. Four reviewed studies did not specify a theoretical framework [48,52,53,55]. The reviewed studies had relatively stronger mean SQS scores on suitability of study design (mean=5.47, SD 1.64 on a scale from 1 to 7) versus overall program evaluation (mean=7.2, SD 2.98 on a scale from 0 to 12).
Process Outcomes
A variety of process outcomes were measured in the reviewed studies, providing evidence that Web 2.0 improved confidence in several aspects of self-management. In five studies, use of Web 2.0 interventions was associated with statistically significant improvements in self-management self-efficacy [47,56,57,59,60], with one study noting positive trends falling just short of statistical significance (P=.06) [56]. Four studies reported positive responses towards using Web 2.0 for communicating with health care providers (ie, nurses, care managers) [51-54], and five reviewed studies showed improvement in perceived social support [48,50,56,57,61].
Chronic disease patients' utilization of Web 2.0 self-management features was also widely examined in 14 of the 15 studies. To determine which Web 2.0 features were accessed most/least often, web log activity was mined in 13 studies [47-52,54-56,58-61]. Three studies [49,51,58] explicitly noted that individuals enrolled in Web 2.0 interventions at baseline did not participate after the first few weeks. For example, in a 4-month study of individuals with diabetes [49], weekly web usage decreased from 189 of 270 (70%) participants logging on during the first 6 weeks to 127 of 270 (47%) participants logging on during weeks 7-16.
Despite short-term attrition being noted as problematic, greater website engagement was generally associated with better behavioral and clinical outcomes. For example, more actively engaged individuals with diabetes showed greater evidence of disease management activity. McMahon and colleagues [55] noted that a larger number of website data uploads was associated with a larger decline in A1C (P=.019), while Nijland and colleagues [51] noted that highly active Web 2.0 users consumed medication more often than low/inactive users (P=.005) [51]. Richardson and colleagues [50] noted that online walking community participants who viewed more pages, or posted to the website more often, demonstrated larger increases in walking step counts (P<.001; P=.03). However, two RCTs studying individuals with type 2 diabetes suggested that self-monitoring using Web 2.0 did not improve medication adherence [49,58].
Functional Outcomes
Findings related to physical activity and nutrition outcomes were mixed. Three studies by Lorig and colleagues [56,59,60] reported conflicting results regarding the effect of Web 2.0 participation on physical activity. In RCTs of patients with musculoskeletal disorders [59] and type 2 diabetes [56], there were no improvements noted in self-reported aerobic, stretching, and strengthening exercise; whereas, a quasi-experimental study of Australians with one or more chronic conditions [60] noted improvements on weekly minutes of exercise and behavioral adherence. In other studies of individuals with diabetes [49,58], self-monitoring of physical activity behaviors improved with concomitant reductions in dietary fat intake.
For the most part, the Web 2.0 interventions tested did not meaningfully impact short-term clinical outcomes, although only 6 reviewed studies [47,49,55,57,58,61] measured the near-term effectiveness of biological and clinical outcomes. For example, over a 4-month study period, website engagement among individuals with diabetes was not associated with any improvements in biological or clinical outcomes [49].
Adoption: Setting and Staff
At the setting level, five of the Web 2.0 interventions were operated by academic research centers [47,52,54,55,57], while four were administered by various health care foundations and clinics [49,51,53,58]. Only three reviewed studies [48,50,60] did not address issues of adoption at the setting level. Thirteen of the 15 reviewed studies (87%) discussed staff level characteristics associated with intervention adoption. Multidisciplinary teams of researchers and practitioners were actively involved in adopting the delivery of Web 2.0 interventions for individuals with chronic disease. Several studies of individuals with diabetes described team science initiatives and collaborations [49,51,55,57,58]. These Web 2.0 interventions were staffed by a variety of health professionals including (but not limited to): diabetes care managers [49,55,58], nutritionists [49,55,58], nurses [51,55,57], behavioral scientists [51], primary care physicians [51,58], pharmacists [55], psychologists [57], diabetes educators [55], and social workers [57]. In each of these studies, one health professional generally acted as the intervention gatekeeper by conducting an initial consultation with the participant. Following this preliminary consultation, routine online follow-up contacts were coordinated by a multidisciplinary set of providers. Often, these follow-up sessions or meetings specifically addressed the variety of concerns that a patient with diabetes is likely to encounter (eg, medication changes, depression, burnout, coping, healthy eating).
Other reviewed studies (not restricted to diabetes) also described how multidisciplinary researcher and practitioner teams came together to staff Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management interventions [47,52-54]. These research teams were responsible for developing and delivering online instructional units and managing program content and communications. In three of these studies [47,53,61], nurses took leading roles to execute patient-centered consultations, host weekly chat sessions and videoconferences, as well as schedule and coordinate follow-up sessions. Studies conducted by Lorig et al [56,59,60] reported the use of peer moderators (ie, individuals also living with a chronic condition who are trained to lead self-management training programs on the Internet) to staff online workshops and facilitate scheduled Web 2.0 intervention learning activities. On scales ranging from 0 to 4, the setting (mean=2.2, SD 1.26) and staff (mean=2.27, SD 1.58) level SQS scores were quite similar.
Implementation: Program Delivery
Almost half (n=7) of the 15 reviewed studies did not provide a detailed evaluation of program costs (money, time, human resources expended), adaptations made to Web 2.0 interventions over time, or fidelity to the intervention protocol. The costs of intervention implementation (ie, money, time, human resource management) were addressed in only six (40%) of the reviewed studies [47,49,51,52,54,55]. Cost considerations included time spent training study staff [55], administration time operating the Web 2.0 intervention [49,54], and developmental costs creating web-based instructional materials [52]. Most studies discussing costs noted that Web 2.0 development and operation costs were high [47,52,54,55]; however, one reviewed study noted minimal financial and human resource burdens [51]. Adaptations were made to Web 2.0 interventions in only four reviewed studies [47,50,54,60]. Changes were necessary due to technical difficulties [47,60], increased staff needs [50], and requests for more scheduled web events to stimulate participant involvement and interaction [54]. Three of the reviewed studies [48,56,58] reported technical, usability, and integration challenges that even caused one study to stop early [58]. Less than half (n=6) of the reviewed studies [47,49,51,52,54,55] described formal process evaluations to assess program fidelity. Mean SQS scores on the Implementation subdimensions (ie, Web 2.0 uptake, intervention development, program integration) were not judged to be noteworthy (see Multimedia Appendix 4).
Multimedia Appendix 5 describes the Web 2.0 implementation characteristics for each retained study. The web design and user interface of all reviewed studies supported two main web architectures: (1) online discussion groups, forums, boards, and communities, and/or (2) individualized entry and upload of personal health data (eg, medication, blood glucose, weight, exercise frequency). Seven of the 15 reviewed studies (47%) described how patients uploaded their personal data to a web platform for review by a clinician or peer moderator [48,49,56,57,59-61]. Graphic displays of user performance meeting personal goals were tracked in five of these studies [49-51,58,61]. Asynchronous communication (ie, participants do not communicate concurrently with one another, sending/posting messages at different times) was used most often through email or an internal messaging system [47,49,51,55,56,58,61]. Several Web 2.0 interventions implemented a combination of asynchronous and synchronous (ie, direct communication where parties are present at the same time) communication features [47,48,51,54,55,61]. Participants reported discussion boards [52], resource pages [52,59], asynchronous electronic messaging [54], personal action plans [49], and individual progress reports [49] as being especially useful for interactive health communication.
Lorig et al [56,59,60] enabled participants to "self-tailor" their interactive learning experiences while participating in interventions. This empowering approach represents an innovative implementation strategy for Web 2.0 self-management [60]. Using this strategy, participants devise a periodic action plan for themselves according to what particular self-management activities (eg, use of cognitive symptom management techniques, drawing up fitness/exercise regimens, planning meals) they want to engage in over a set period of time. Then, they are asked to rate their self-efficacy for accomplishing these planned activities before participating in the tasks. This reflection encourages patients to think about doing what is "real" as opposed to what is "ideal" [60]. Self-tailoring operates under principles of self-efficacy theory [62] by supporting the participant to pursue mastery experiences over time to build self-confidence. Six other studies also alluded to implementing principles of self-tailoring by helping participants develop: (1) action plans, (2) "To Do" lists for attaining weekly goals, (3) symptom self-monitoring diaries, and (4) tailored reasons/strategies for goal attainment [49-51,54,56,58].
Maintenance: Individual and Setting
At the individual level, there were mixed results on the effect of technical mishaps on patient exposure to Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management. In several studies [47,48,51], technical difficulties were associated with (1) decreased participant engagement, (2) lower intervention enrollment, and (3) increased nonusage attrition. Problems included lack of Internet access, unreliable wireless coverage, slowed performance due to proprietary security software, poor navigation structures, and overall trouble with log-ins. Several other studies did not report these types of long-term technical problems, however, and instead reported highly active participation for up to 1 year among participants [51,54,59-61]. Even comfort with using computers and the Internet improved among participants [52-54].
While only moderate 12-month improvements were noted in biological outcomes and self-reported health care utilization [56,59,60], there were other several notable long-term effects maintained at the individual level. Glasgow et al [58] and Lorig et al [60] found statistically significant improvements in health behaviors and health status. Several RCTs of individuals with diabetes reported that Web 2.0 participation was associated with improved generic health-related quality of life and a reduction in depressive symptoms [57], greater declines in A1C [55,56], and reductions in blood pressure [55,58].
At the setting level, 13 of the 15 reviewed studies (87%) did not describe any substantive measures taken to sustain Web 2.0 interventions past designated study time periods. The mean SQS scores on both the setting (mean=3.13, SD 2.26 on a scale from 0 to 7) and individual (mean=1.53, SD 1.25 on a scale from 0 to 3) levels of the Maintenance dimension were judged to be the lowest of all RE-AIM dimensions that were evaluated.
This review provides a synthesis of research studies that describe Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management inventions for older adults. Healthy Aging 2.0 argues that the evolution of older e-patients using participatory Web 2.0 technologies (eg, social networking, telemedicine, mHealth applications) requires new methods for transforming current health care communications [63]. Several overarching recommendations gleaned from this literature review will be discussed in the context of RE-AIM to guide the planning, implementation, and evaluation of future chronic disease self-management Web 2.0 interventions.
Some researchers have proposed that the "digital divide" in health promotion and disease management may be shrinking [24,64]. This systematic review indicated that the majority of reviewed interventions targeted only older adults with diabetes, and most involved small samples primarily consisting of white females in the United States. Additional research is needed among older adults with other types of chronic conditions (eg, arthritis, hypertension, COPD) to determine actual usage as well as disease-specific reasons for use and nonuse of Web 2.0 technologies. Understanding disease-specific factors is important, because the effects of Web 2.0 engagement will likely be stronger if health care practitioners determine the type of patients more likely to log in regularly as opposed to sporadically. Strengthening the breadth of Web 2.0 interventions to include multiple chronic conditions will likely have an adverse impact on reach however [58]. Therefore, we need to cost-effectively reach diverse samples of older adults who are managing a variety of comorbid conditions. More sufficiently powered studies should attempt to include underrepresented, medically underserved chronic disease patients to determine how these populations may benefit from Web 2.0 self-management support programs.
To date, researchers have insisted that too few high-quality Web-based interventions have been conducted to sufficiently test the effectiveness of different types of Internet-mediated interventions [20,65]. The majority of studies in this review (n=9), however, were theoretically based RCTs that provided a relatively high level of evidence. Older adults felt greater self-efficacy for managing their disease(s) and benefitted from interacting with health care providers and/or website moderators to receive feedback and support. When familiarity with Web 2.0 improves, older participants (especially those with low self-efficacy and social support) may gain knowledge, skills, and mastery experiences to reinforce recommended self-management strategies. Evidence suggests that greater Web 2.0 engagement may also be associated with more positive behavioral (ie, physical activity) and clinical (ie, HRQoL) outcomes; however, this review indicates that Web 2.0 self-management interventions have yet to meaningfully impact medication adherence, biological outcomes, and health care utilization among older adults.
In order for Web 2.0 self-management interventions to become core components of chronic disease management programs, more evidence is needed to support that Internet-mediated health ICTs are associated with improvements in health outcomes. For many of the reviewed studies, it was not clear which aspect or component of each intervention was most effective even though web log activity was monitored in almost all (93%) of the reviewed studies. As was indicated in our SQS quality assessment, impact evaluations assessing Web 2.0 engagement were generally lacking. This diminished the researchers' ability to determine patient satisfaction with different ICT exposures and limited further insights into the primary usability problems leading to low usage. Future Web 2.0 studies should use impact evaluation frameworks to reveal the active components of multicomponent Web 2.0 interventions so that we may determine the contexts in which treatments are most effective [66] and also distinguish the right combination of human and computerized support necessary to facilitate sustained participation [58].
Among the studies that addressed adoption at the setting level, most described team science approaches to adopting Web 2.0 for chronic disease self-management support. Multidisciplinary groups of health care and ICT professionals built upon shared skills and experiences to develop chronic disease self-management interventions, primarily for individuals with diabetes. Given the increased emphasis on the coordination of chronic care teams [3], it is interesting to note the omnipresence of provider teams participating in the development of Web 2.0 interventions. The minimum administrative time burden associated with operating an interactive chronic disease self-management website may be quite high; thus, team-based approaches may reduce the administrative burden placed on individual health care units to operate Web 2.0 self-management support programs. Future studies should conduct more detailed setting and staff level analyses to determine whether operating Web 2.0 self-management interventions is feasible within existing public health and health care administration units.
Even though participants viewed Web 2.0 favorably, program implementation was not seamless. Most studies noted that Web 2.0 development and operation costs were high, and the majority of studies did not sufficiently evaluate implementation quality [67]. Less than half of the reviewed studies described formal process evaluations to assess program fidelity. Process evaluations are important to: (1) identify best-practice strategies for future programs, (2) reduce potential for technical difficulties, (3) determine the amount of time patients are willing to spend using Web 2.0 for self-management support, and (4) estimate the amount of human and financial resources necessary for high-quality delivery. Implementation costs include trained facilitators, online data collection/analysis, Web system testing and hosting, as well as back up services for technical anomalies [54]. Cost projections encourage program developers to consider issues of dosage, staff training/supervision procedures, and revising administrative and practice responsibilities of health care personnel. Different Web 2.0 models need to be evaluated economically before these resource-intensive interventions are disseminated to chronically ill older adults at the population level [47].
Asynchronous communication tools (ie, email, internal messaging systems, discussion boards) and personal tracking features (ie, graphical displays of uploaded data) were noted as some of the more useful interactive Web 2.0 components. Promising findings from multiple studies suggested that "self-tailored" Web 2.0 approaches may reduce health distress and activity limitation, improve health status, and foster patient engagement more so than less patient-centered Web 2.0 approaches. While these tools and strategies have shown promise in promoting interaction, it remains unclear how best to define and measure web engagement/participation among older participants [68]. Post hoc patient interviews in this population may be important for better understanding the engagement construct, especially since individual psychosocial characteristics may be highly associated with level of Internet use [49,58]. Some researchers have recommended that scatter plot displays of the relationship between engagement and outcomes be analyzed, along with logistic regression analyses that determine whether unique patient characteristics predict dichotomous threshold use indices for different Web 2.0 components [49,58]. Future research should determine engagement metrics that are important to evaluate during Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management interventions.
Integrating Web 2.0 self-management interventions into primary care settings seems like a logical next venue for implementation [58]. Patient-centered health care organizations can employ virtual communities to direct and support chronic disease patients [69]. Some research has shown that e-patients with chronic diseases want easy access to multiple interactive tools they can control and customize [70]. Other research indicates that patients prefer fewer system components that can be used repeatedly [71]. Flexible tools that give users greater control and choice may be more convenient and customizable, and thus result in greater patient satisfaction, sustained engagement, and more positive health outcomes. Forward-thinking implementation strategies should recognize patients as experts in their own disease process and management [54]. These types of progressive approaches are likely to generate on-line contexts that deliver more personalized self-management training experiences.
Managing illness is a lifelong responsibility for chronically ill older adults, who often have to deal with physical limitations and increasingly difficult living conditions over time [72]. Regrettably, the reviewed studies were judged to be weakest on the Maintenance dimension of the RE-AIM evaluation framework. At 12 months, only moderate overall gains were observed in biological outcomes and health care utilization. There were, however, some long-term improvements to report in health behavior, health status, and even with respect to a few clinical markers [55,58-60]. Future studies should be designed to have longer follow-up periods to test whether positive 1-year intervention effects can be sustained among larger, more diverse samples of chronically ill patients over longer periods of time in spite of low-usage attrition or dropout [22].
Maintaining and expanding Web 2.0 for chronic disease self-management requires a better understanding of the barriers that prevent continuous access to the Internet. We do not yet fully understand which factors influence long-term use/nonuse of Web 2.0 because user attrition in older adult chronic disease populations is rarely examined in depth. Health care policy makers would be best served by accounting for the way older adults are using Web 2.0 technologies to research personal health choices and interact with health care experts [73]. Elements crucial to the maintenance of future interventions may include: (1) establishing multidisciplinary teams, (2) allowing adequate time for research and development, (3) securing sufficient resources for building and maintaining an online presence, and (4) developing an integrated process and impact evaluation framework [74]. Future interventions should continuously evaluate individual needs and system requirements to understand which intervention strategies are best suited for Web 2.0 [51].
It was interesting to note that as program exposure increased among participants, so too did comfort with using computers and the Internet. Future interventions should consider installing feedback mechanisms and triggers (eg, email reminders) that provide automated messages to motivate and inspire users to participate in interactive self-management experiences on the Internet. So-called "push factors" may influence persistent engagement and support longer-term use [75]. Currently, it is unclear which types of automated supports (eg, email alerts, text message reminders, inspiring testimonials) encourage more active involvement in Web 2.0 chronic disease self-management. Additional research should determine whether personalized feedback from a real person is more persuasive than computerized tailored feedback and how to achieve the most effective and cost-effective balance between automated and nonautomated correspondence when using Web 2.0 [51,58].
This study had several limitations. Although the search was comprehensive and systematic, using a rigorous method of searching and reviewing articles, some studies may have been overlooked due to lack of indexing in searched databases. Moreover, variable terminology used to describe web-based chronic disease self-management programs on the Internet could have led to missing certain eligible studies. As a result, the final sample of articles included in the study (n=15) may have been limited. In addition, several articles had relatively small sample sizes, which may have not been representative of the patient populations from which they were drawn. Consequently, our ability to generalize is limited. Diversity in the samples was also lacking. The samples in the reviewed studies consisted primarily of highly educated, white patients. Lower socioeconomic status populations, with low-literacy levels, were underrepresented in the reviewed studies.
The combination of dropouts and limited adherence to program activities may also have led to a misrepresentation of intervention effects. Participants who did participate in these interventions may have unintentionally (or intentionally) contributed dubious or outright false health information that may have negatively impacted other intervention participants. The lack of regulation when delivering self-management training opportunities via Web 2.0 may prompt false senses of empowerment to the extent that patients may even contest treatment options and decisions handed down from their health care providers.
We can expect many specialized, patient-centered websites to arise in response to specific chronic disease information needs [76]. While Web 2.0 may help train chronically ill patients to make informed decisions and solve daily self-management problems [22,48], the effectiveness of Web 2.0 interventions for patients with chronic diseases remains a significant challenge [77]. There is concern that Web 2.0 tools are made available regardless of usability, acceptability, and/or associated outcomes [78]. To extend the reach of chronic disease self-management and promote more widespread Web 2.0 adoption across different health care settings and among multidisciplinary teams of health care providers, future research should attempt to determine how to create personally customizable content-sharing websites regarding healthy lifestyles, treatment options, and locating available health services. Given that older adults are the fastest growing group of novice computer users [79] and that the opportunity to reach these individuals will increase as older adults become "wired" for Internet access [6], researchers must actively explore how to improve the quality of these interventions for older populations.
A patient-centered, evidence-based framework is needed to design and deliver Web 2.0 technologies to older adults who may require specialized tools because of functional and cognitive impairments associated with aging [80]. Using results from this review in concert with the RE-AIM model may provide guidance for creating more patient-centered chronic disease self-management models that consider Web 2.0 user interfaces (technical, information architecture, aesthetic, and functional), communication features (synchronous or asynchronous), and learning modalities (low-literate instructional design). The effective translation of these strategies using Web 2.0 applications will likely result in new approaches for empowering, engaging, and educating older adults with chronic disease.
This work was supported by the NIH (NCATS) CTSA awards to the University of Florida UL1TR000064 and KL2TR000065.
SQS measurement criteria.
SQS measurement items.
RE-AIM Attributes of Reviewed Studies.
SQS scores for articles.
Web 2.0 Implementation Characteristics.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. Chronic disease the power to prevent, the call to control: at a glance URL: http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/AAG/pdf/chronic.pdf [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
World Health Organization. Health topics: Chronic diseases URL: http://www.who.int/topics/chronic_diseases/en/ [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AARP, American Medical Association. Promoting Preventive Services for Adults 50-64: Community and Clinical Partnerships. Atlanta, GA: National Association of Chronic Disease Directors; 2009. URL: http://www.cdc.gov/aging/pdf/promoting-preventive-services.pdf [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Hesse BW, Hansen D, Finholt T, Munson S, Kellogg W, Thomas JC. Social Participation in Health 2.0. Computer (Long Beach Calif) 2010 Nov 11;43(11):45-52 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Fox S, Pucell K. California Healthcare Foundation. Chronic Disease and the Internet URL: http://web.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Chronic_Disease_with_topline.pdf [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Zickuhr K, Madden M. Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. Older Adults and Internet Use URL: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Older_adults_and_internet_use.pdf [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Bennett GG, Glasgow RE. The delivery of public health interventions via the Internet: actualizing their potential. Annu Rev Public Health 2009;30:273-292. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Clark NM. Management of chronic disease by patients. Annu Rev Public Health 2003;24:289-313. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Madden M. Older adults and social media: social networking use among those ages 50 and older nearly doubled over the past year URL: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/Pew%20Internet%20-%20Older%20Adults%20and%20Social%20Media.pdf [accessed 2012-12-21] [WebCite Cache]
Moeller P. U.S. News and World Report site. Seniors are saying no to high tech URL: http://www.usnews.com/mobile/blogs/the-best-life/2011/8/15/seniors-are-saying-no-to-high-tech.html [accessed 2012-12-21] [WebCite Cache]
Zickuhr K, Smith A. Digital differences. URL: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf [accessed 2012-12-21] [WebCite Cache]
Hawkins RP, Han JY, Pingree S, Shaw BR, Baker TB, Roberts LJ. Interactivity and Presence of Three eHealth Interventions. Comput Human Behav 2010 Sep 1;26(5):1081-1088 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Capel S, Childs S, Banwell L, Heaford S. Access to information and support for health: some potential issues and solutions for an ageing population. Health Informatics J 2007 Dec;13(4):243-253. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Pulman A. A patient centred framework for improving LTC quality of life through Web 2.0 technology. Health Informatics J 2010 Mar;16(1):15-23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Birnsteel L. Web 2.0 in the Health Sector: Industry Review with UK Perspective Report. URL: http://www.ehi.co.uk/research/ [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Car J, Sheikh A. Email consultations in health care: 1--scope and effectiveness. BMJ 2004 Aug 21;329(7463):435-438 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Podichetty V, Penn D. The progressive roles of electronic medicine: benefits, concerns, and costs. Am J Med Sci 2004 Aug;328(2):94-99. [Medline]
Samoocha D, Bruinvels DJ, Elbers NA, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ. Effectiveness of web-based interventions on patient empowerment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2010;12(2):e23 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Wantland DJ, Portillo CJ, Holzemer WL, Slaughter R, McGhee EM. The effectiveness of Web-based vs. non-Web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res 2004 Nov 10;6(4):e40 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Eland-de Kok P, van Os-Medendorp H, Vergouwe-Meijer A, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C, Ros W. A systematic review of the effects of e-health on chronically ill patients. J Clin Nurs 2011 Nov;20(21-22):2997-3010. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Jones S, Fox S. Generations Online. 2009. URL: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1093/generations-online [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
de Clercq PA, Hasman A, Wolffenbuttel BH. Design of a consumer health record for supporting the patient-centered management of chronic diseases. Stud Health Technol Inform 2001;84(Pt 2):1445-1449. [Medline]
Hejlesen OK, Plougmann S, Ege BM, Larsen OV, Bek T, Cavan D. Using the internet in patient-centred diabetes care for communication, education, and decision support. Stud Health Technol Inform 2001;84(Pt 2):1464-1468. [Medline]
Loader BD, Muncer S, Burrows R, Pleace N, Nettleton S. Medicine on the line? Computer-mediated social support and advice for people with diabetes. Int J Soc Welf 2002;11(1):53-65.
Laakso E, Armstrong K, Usher W. Cyber-management of people with chronic disease: A potential solution to eHealth challenges. Health Educ J 2012;71(4):83-490.
Feldman MD. Munchausen by Internet: detecting factitious illness and crisis on the Internet. South Med J 2000 Jul;93(7):669-672. [Medline]
Russell C, Campbell A, Hughes I. Ageing, social capital and the Internet: findings from an exploratory study of Australian 'silver surfers'. Australas J Ageing 2008 Jun;27(2):78-82. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, Boberg E, Pingree S, Serlin RE, Graziano F, et al. Impact of a patient-centered, computer-based health information/support system. Am J Prev Med 1999 Jan;16(1):1-9. [Medline]
Overberg R, Otten W, de Man A, Toussaint P, Westenbrink J, Zwetsloot-Schonk B. How breast cancer patients want to search for and retrieve information from stories of other patients on the internet: an online randomized controlled experiment. J Med Internet Res 2010;12(1):e7 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
McWilliam CL. Patients, persons or partners? Involving those with chronic disease in their care. Chronic Illn 2009 Dec;5(4):277-292. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Center for Technology and Aging. Technologies to Help Older Adults Maintain Independence: Advancing Technology Adoption URL: http://www.aging.org/files/public/articles.papers.pdf [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Lorig KR, Holman H. Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 2003 Aug;26(1):1-7. [Medline]
Newman S, Steed L, Mulligan K. Self-management interventions for chronic illness. Lancet 2004;364(9444):1523-1537. [CrossRef] [Medline]
O'Reilly T, Battelle J. Opening Welcome. In: State of the Internet Industry Web 2.0 Conference. 2004 Oct 05 Presented at: State of the Internet Industry Web 2.0 Conference; Oct. 5, 2004; San Francisco, CA URL: http://cdn.conversationsnetwork.org/Batelle%20and%20O%27Reilly%20-%20The%20State%20of%20the%20Internet%20Industry.mp3
World Health Organization. Definition of an Older or Elderly Person: Proposed Working Definition of an Older Person in Africa for the MDS Project. URL: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ageingdefnolder/en/index.html [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-1327. [Medline]
Kessler RS, Purcell EP, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Benkeser RM, Peek CJ. What Does It Mean to "Employ" the RE-AIM Model? Eval Health Prof 2013 Mar 2012;36(1):44-66. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Glasgow RE, Dickinson P, Fisher L, Christiansen S, Toobert DJ, Bender BG, et al. Use of RE-AIM to develop a multi-media facilitation tool for the patient-centered medical home. Implement Sci 2011;6:118 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Zaza S, Wright-De Agüero LK, Briss PA, Truman BI, Hopkins DP, Hennessy MH, et al. Data collection instrument and procedure for systematic reviews in the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Am J Prev Med 2000 Jan;18(1 Suppl):44-74. [Medline]
Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2004;1(3):176-184. [CrossRef] [Medline]
The Cochrane Collaboration. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Oxfordshire, UK: John Wiley & Sons; Mar 2011.
Molleman GR, Ploeg MA, Hosman CM, Peters LH. Preffi 2.0- a quality assessment tool. Promot Educ 2006;13(1):9-14. [Medline]
Nguyen HQ, Donesky-Cuenco D, Wolpin S, Reinke LF, Benditt JO, Paul SM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of an internet-based versus face-to-face dyspnea self-management program for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pilot study. J Med Internet Res 2008;10(2):e9 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Solomon M, Wagner SL, Goes J. Effects of a Web-based intervention for adults with chronic conditions on patient activation: online randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2012;14(1):e32 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Glasgow RE, Christiansen SM, Kurz D, King DK, Woolley T, Faber AJ, et al. Engagement in a diabetes self-management website: usage patterns and generalizability of program use. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(1):e9 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Richardson CR, Buis LR, Janney AW, Goodrich DE, Sen A, Hess ML, et al. An online community improves adherence in an internet-mediated walking program. Part 1: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2010;12(4):e71 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Nijland N, van Gemert-Pijnen JE, Kelders SM, Brandenburg BJ, Seydel ER. Factors influencing the use of a Web-based application for supporting the self-care of patients with type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study. J Med Internet Res 2011;13(3):e71 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Cudney S, Weinert C. An online approach to providing chronic illness self-management information. Comput Inform Nurs 2012 Feb;30(2):110-117. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Marziali E. E-health program for patients with chronic disease. Telemed J E Health 2009 Mar;15(2):176-181. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Smarr KL, Musser DR, Shigaki CL, Johnson R, Hanson KD, Siva C. Online self-management in rheumatoid arthritis: a patient-centered model application. Telemed J E Health 2011 Mar;17(2):104-110. [CrossRef] [Medline]
McMahon GT, Gomes HE, Hickson Hohne S, Hu TM, Levine BA, Conlin PR. Web-based care management in patients with poorly controlled diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005 Jul;28(7):1624-1629 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
Lorig K, Ritter PL, Laurent DD, Plant K, Green M, Jernigan VBB, et al. Online diabetes self-management program: a randomized study. Diabetes Care 2010 Jun 2010;33(6):1275-1281 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Bond GE, Burr RL, Wolf FM, Feldt K. The effects of a web-based intervention on psychosocial well-being among adults aged 60 and older with diabetes: a randomized trial. Diabetes Educ 2010;36(3):446-456. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Glasgow RE, Kurz D, King D, Dickman JM, Faber AJ, Halterman E, et al. Twelve-month outcomes of an Internet-based diabetes self-management support program. Patient Educ Couns 2012 Apr;87(1):81-92. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Lorig KR, Ritter PL, Laurent DD, Plant K. The internet-based arthritis self-management program: a one-year randomized trial for patients with arthritis or fibromyalgia. Arthritis Rheum 2008 Jul 15;59(7):1009-1017 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Lorig K, Ritter PL, Plant K, Laurent DD, Kelly P, Rowe S. The South australia health chronic disease self-management internet trial. Health Educ Behav 2013 Feb;40(1):67-77. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Nguyen HQ, Donesky D, Reinke LF, Wolpin S, Chyall L, Benditt JO, et al. Internet-Based Dyspnea Self-Management Support for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. J Pain Symptom Manage 2012 Oct 13. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Bandura A. Health Functioning. In: Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1997.
Hall AK, Stellefson M, Bernhardt JM. Healthy Aging 2.0: the potential of new media and technology. Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:E67 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
Stellefson ML, Chaney EH, Chaney JD. The digital divide in health education: Myth or reality? Am J Health Educ 2008;39(2):106-112 [FREE Full text]
Eisenstein EL, Lobach DF, Montgomery P, Kawamoto K, Anstrom KJ. Evaluating implementation fidelity in health information technology interventions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007:211-215 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
Borrelli B, Sepinwall D, Ernst D, Bellg AJ, Czajkowski S, Breger R, et al. A new tool to assess treatment fidelity and evaluation of treatment fidelity across 10 years of health behavior research. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005 Oct;73(5):852-860. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Winkelman WJ, Choo CW. Provider-sponsored virtual communities for chronic patients: improving health outcomes through organizational patient-centred knowledge management. Health Expect 2003 Dec;6(4):352-358. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Kerr C, Murray E, Stevenson F, Gore C, Nazareth I. Internet interventions for long-term conditions: patient and caregiver quality criteria. J Med Internet Res 2006;8(3):e13 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Hurling R, Catt M, Boni MD, Fairley BW, Hurst T, Murray P, et al. Using internet and mobile phone technology to deliver an automated physical activity program: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2007;9(2):e7 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Car J, Sheikh A. Email consultations in health care: 2--acceptability and safe application. BMJ 2004 Aug 21;329(7463):439-442 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Hardey M. Public health and web 2.0. Perspect Public Health 2008;128(4):181-189.
Gold J, Pedrana AE, Stoove MA, Chang S, Howard S, Asselin J, et al. Developing health promotion interventions on social networking sites: recommendations from The FaceSpace Project. J Med Internet Res 2012;14(1):e30 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Fogg B. A behavior model for persuasive design. URL: http://bjfogg.com/fbm_files/page4_1.pdf [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Ossebaard HC, Seydel ER, van Gemert-Pijnen L. Online usability and patients with long-term conditions: a mixed-methods approach. Int J Med Inform 2012 Jun;81(6):374-387. [CrossRef] [Medline]
Kerr C, Murray E, Noble L, Morris R, Bottomley C, Stevenson F, et al. The potential of Web-based interventions for heart disease self-management: a mixed methods investigation. J Med Internet Res 2010;12(4):e56 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Holt M. Health 2.0 definition: Holt's definition. URL: http://health20.org/wiki/Health_2.0_Definition [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Fox S. E-patients with a disability or chronic disease.: Pew Internet Project URL: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2007/EPatients_Chronic_Conditions_2007.pdf.pdf [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
Administration on Aging. US Department of Health and Human Services. Utilizing Patient-Centered Technologies to Support Care Transitions URL: http://www.aoa.gov/aging_statistics/docs/AoA_ACA_Slides_062111.pdf [accessed 2012-11-03] [WebCite Cache]
HRQoL: health-related quality of life
ICT: information and communication technology
RE-AIM: Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance
SQS: study quality score
Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 14.11.12; peer-reviewed by A Pulman, E Marziali, R Glasgow; comments to author 21.11.12; revised version received 30.12.12; accepted 26.01.13; published 14.02.13
©Michael Stellefson, Beth Chaney, Adam E. Barry, Enmanuel Chavarria, Bethany Tennant, Kim Walsh-Childers, P.S. Sriram, Justin Zagora. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 14.02.2013.
Stellefson M, Chaney B, Barry AE, Chavarria E, Tennant B, Walsh-Childers K, Sriram P, Zagora J

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Confusion, anxiety, fear, and excitement. These are feelings I can imagine having as a new immigrant to America. All these emotions are evident in the faces of these immigrants at Ellis Island.
Standing on the corner of E. 23rd St. where it intersects with 5th Ave. and Broadway, the pressing needs of food and shelter would be the first things on my mind, especially if I was a mother. When considering what to do and who to ask for advice and help, I would rely on my gut instinct.
Your gut instinct. This is what I imagine brought a majority of the hundreds of thousand immigrants to America from the late 1800s to early 1900s. Thinking about the decision to move to a new country with the hope that life will be better had to be terrifying, especially for people during the late 1800s. They may have just heard from a friend of a friend that their cousin had a good experience immigrating. To make a life altering decision like that, I would have to have more than just hope that life would be better. I would have to feel like it was truly fate calling me. I would have to feel it in my gut.
That being said, I would seek out a person who looked reliable and trustworthy to ask for advice, preferably who spoke my language. I would ask them for help in finding a settlement house worker to help me find a place to stay. In all these scenarios, I would listen to my instincts when making decisions.
Today, with the help of all the modern technology at our fingertips, I think it would be much easier to move to America. Some barriers would still be the same, particularly the language issue, but in general I think there would be a lot more information at your disposal.
Again, even in this day and age, I think relying on your instincts is a good way to go. An article in Newsweek from November 20, 2007 says just that. Here's the link… http://www.newsweek.com/2007/11/19/less-information-is-more.html . In any stressful or new situation, there's definitely something to be said for trusting your gut. Especially as an immigrant, when you don't speak the language, this is all you have.
Above all, I would remember that America is a country of immigrants, and trust that I have the ability to thrive.


But were ALL indigenous practices effective? Of course not. As we explained earlier in this book, "just because it's Black doesn't make it right." Some of our approaches worked on a psychosomatic level, convincing the patient to self-initiate their own healing through the placebo effect (or the psychomotor effect).
At other times, the ritual aspects of the treatment were myth-ified masks for the actual treatment. For example, telling the patient that the Gods require he not eat for 3 days may have been a ritualized way to prescribe a 3 day fast to detox his system. This is a common practice among people who are known as healers, medicine men, and witch doctors. They use the myth and taboo to conceal the treatment plan, because some treatment plans (like drinking a nasty concoction) won't be followed unless there's some superstition involved.
Of course, we know that our ancestors' first approach was scientific, never superstitious. Superstition came after the science was misunderstood. Think about it. Can a mythical, faith-based ritual evolve into a scientific, evidence-based practice that treats real conditions? Nah. It's gotta be the other way around. So our ancestors who were scientists figured out that Echinacea leaves were good for preventing colds, and they taught this knowledge to everyone, sometimes using a mythical story to make the knowledge memorable.
Science first. We can see a similar transition when we look at the oldest Egyptian medical texts. The Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus, possibly the oldest surviving medical text of any kind, treats women's complaints, including problems with conception, detailing diagnosis and treatment.[i] It's straight science. Over 3,000 years ago.
The only text that might be older is the Edwin Smith Papyrus, a 1600 BC copy of texts that may date back to 3000 BC, when Imhotep is said to have composed the first textbook of surgery.[ii] The Edwin Smith Papyrus has almost no magical or superstitious thinking in it, and goes deep into the examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of numerous conditions.
Only later, with the Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BC), will we find a text full of incantations and ritual practices meant to turn away disease-causing demons, along with other superstitions. It does, however, contain some of the earliest descriptions of migraines and tumors, but it's clear that – by this time – scientific thinking has given way to religious thinking.
[ii] J. H. Breasted, The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, University of Chicago Press, 1930.


Dubai: Azizi Developments has confirmed plans to bring in a new contractor to take over its ambitious "Victoria" project in Meydan. The intention is to fast-track the development process at the Victoria, one of two "mini-cities" Azizi is building at Meydan, with "Riviera" being the other.
The two projects will eventually have a combined built-up area of 4.4 million square metres plus.
"Yes, we are in the process of changing the contractor – there are bigger local and international contractors who can come in with fresh ideas," said Farhad Azizi, CEO of Azizi Developments. "The international ones are big names – from China and Turkey.
The Victoria and Riviera are central to Azizi's plans to take on massive, multi-phase projects. Until now, its focus had been primarily on single-property developments in Dubai's many freehold locations.
"What Victoria and Riviera do is give us ample scale – both sites are close to Meydan Hotel and only a street separates them," said Azizi. "The Riviera, split into four phases, will have 71 buildings and 16,000 residents, on a built-up of 1.64 million square metres. We have already advanced in the Phase 1 and 2 works on the Riviera.
Doing so should help on the sales side as well; through the last 18 months Azizi's sales focus had been on the Riviera, and of the first two phases, offplan sales are in the 70 per cent range.
Azizi had awarded a Dh1.5 billion contract in late 2017 to two firms to build 32 buildings in Phase 1 of Victoria. The two contractors chosen at the time were Green Modelling Contracting and Modern Civil International Contracting Co..
The areas in and around Meydan – which includes the Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum City - have been earmarked for some of most high visibility projects Dubai will see in the near future. This includes the Meydan One mall with its one-kilometre ski slope, a "canal" that has already taken shape within MBR City, and multiple residential clusters such as Hartland and District One. All of which will make Meydan more than a destination for racing and concert extravaganzas.
Azizi, meanwhile, will wait a further two years before it starts picking up new land in Dubai for future projects. "There is enough land bank to see us through this year and the next," the CEO said. "There's nothing we have planned at this stage for Dubai South – the closest we have got there is with projects in Al Furjan and those are running well.
In the second-half of this year, Azizi will have finalised the design and all other plans related to its twin-tower project "at the corner of Safa Park" on Shaikh Zayed Road. The spot has become one of the most coveted after the Water Canal extension.


text:
Q: Can we install Sqoop, Hive & MySQL in Name Node (Master) of a Hadoop Cluster? I have a multi-node Hadoop cluster as 1 master and 2 Slaves.

*

*i want to try import from MySQL and load in HDFS.

*i want to have Hive to write hive queries on HDFS.

to perform above task, can I install Hive, Sqoop, MySQL on Name-Node (Master) of my Hadoop cluster?
or is it mandatory to have Edgenode?

A: Having an edgenode is a network architectural pattern in a Hadoop cluster, not a hard-requirement for anything. Edgenodes only run client applications, not run server processes (other than sshd)
Ideally, MySQL runs separate from Hadoop servers. Your NameNode(s) should also be independent servers with a large amount of reserve RAM for cluster growth.
You can run sqoop completely outside of the cluster, even. It only needs network access to HDFS, YARN, and the database (it is basically a wrapper around Mapreduce and JDBC clients). By the way, Sqoop is a retired Apache project, so I suggest finding an alternative solution, such as Spark (or a project called Spooq).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Join us as the best baseball facility in the northeast talks about how to get players from the youth level through high school to the next stage. Coach Matty Maher goes in depth about hitting, running, pitching and more with special guest stars to further drive the points home. Get ready to play ball.
Our facility's trainers are all ex players with decades of experience at our back. Coach Matty Maher was named to ESPN the Magazine's 1st Academic All-American Team in 2009. He is the All-Time hit and steal leader at Fairleigh Dickinson University, the Division I campus. There are also MLB special guests sprinkled throughout.
You just booked "ProSwing`s Fundamentals to America`s Past Time"


I think one of the main things that makes me want to be as close to Jesus as I can is the personalized touches of His love that He gives me.
He does special things in each of our lives—sometimes we notice, many times we don't, and other times we notice but don't peg the credit right. It must be sad for Him, but Jesus loves us too much to give up. On and on throughout our life, He just keeps showing us and saying those three wonderful words: I love you!
As a teen struggling with a myriad of powerful emotions and intense loneliness, I needed to feel that love in a tangible form. One day, I saw by the side of the road the cutest, most adorable miniature pansy. The blossom was no bigger than my fingernail, and the stem only as long as my finger. I picked it and held it carefully all the way home, where I placed it in a paper cup on my bedside table. A week passed, and it was still cheery and bright, as good as new. I was happy.
Then the most curious thing occurred—a "never before, never since" event, in my experience. From the pansy's tiny stem, roots began growing, which soon extended longer and stronger. I planted it in a flowerpot and saw it grow into a plant with many other blossoms. I was amazed, but also reassured that my Creator—the one who made my pansy grow from nothing—was with me, molding me through the ups and downs, and bringing blossoms of joy my way.


Nov 29, 2018. No-limit transfers with competitive exchange rates for 60+. Buy and Sell Gold & Silver Bullion with BullionStar - Guaranteed Best Main forex modal gratis for Bars & Coins in Singapore | Uob bank malaysia forex rate Metals Storage Available | Retail Shop in.
Contact: Head Of Customer Advocacy & Service Quality. Mar 1, 2017. Best Singapore Fixed/Time/etc Deposit Rate UPDATED 21 Dec 2018. Dec 14, 2018. OCBC Bank. - 11.360, +. Singapore · China · Fees & Charges · Help & Support. They are not to be taken as an offer to contract. Reg. No. 193500026Z.
All Rights Reserved. Transactions incurred will be converted to Ringgit Malaysia using US Dollars as the. DBS card but would like to explore other banks, like UOB, OCBC etc. UOB MB eCW190416. UOB. - 24.960, +0.680, +2.80, 1,541.1, 4.0, 24.950, 24.970, 17.7, forex first friday month, 24.290, 100. Foreign Exchange, Bank Selling (TT/OD), Bank Buying (TT), Bank Buying uob bank malaysia forex rate. Spn Gold - Live Gold Rate Price (India).
Olam International is a leading agri-business company in the world, operating from seed to. Money changers often offer a superior exchange rate than banks due to the. Enjoy competitive rates for a wide range of foreign currencies and the ability to hedge your foreign exchange exposures You can secure/book Uob bank malaysia forex rate rates in. OCBC FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATES. daily prices.
The bank then applies the currency conversion fee from the card association instaforex office in lahore. The buying rate is used when foreign currency is sold to the Bank and the selling rate is used when foreign uobb is bought from the Bank.
Mar 21, 2017. DBS/POSB (via internet banking), UOB (via internet banking). If the due date falls on. actual exchange uob bank malaysia forex rate. The regional financial institution said the Malaysian currency would likely average at. NEW UOB: Earn 1.65% p.a. for 10-mth SGD fixed deposits till 31 Dec NEW. Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Uob bank malaysia forex rate trades will be amalgamated. All debit card retail transactions in foreign currency are subject to a charge.
CIMB Bank has a new online fixed deposit promotion with interest of up to 1.80% p.a. Foreign Exchange Rates · Gold and Silver Prices · Money Changing Rates. The uob bank malaysia forex rate shown here are indicative only and are subject to change without prior notice.
Nigeria to secure hard currency earnings to meet the foreign exchange requirements of the other Group Companies operating in Nigeria. UOB charges a 1.8% administrative fee for all its Visa/MasterCard credit cards except.
OCBC Business Banking. Youre in Malaysia. Fees · Trade Services Fees. Rates. Rupiah, Korean Won. Copyright © 2018 United Overseas Bank Limited Co. Feb 23, 2016. UOB Bank Malaysia rats ringgit rebounding to 4.1 vs US$. Outward Remittance Fees yin yang forex trading system download UOB eAlerts!
Dec 2018 Time: 03:17:00 PM. against S$. Reserve rate outlook with fewer hikes this year and recent ringgit strength.
Uob bank malaysia forex rate Bank : 1%. From users posted rate by various credit card issuers. Weve simplified the way uob bank malaysia forex rate manage your funds from various accounts. All rates are obtained, with permission. LuLu International Exchange LLC. Timezone 100% extra double dollar promotion on 1 Jan fores.
Total fees, 2.8%, plus the foreign exchange rate determined by Visa /. Complaints Unit. Department Name: Customer Advocacy and Service Quality. Currency Converter. Convert. Units of. Send money to a Malaysian bank account through your UOB bank account. Money. 1. UOB Mighty Malaysia. Malaysoa Overseas Bank Limited Co. US$. Foreign Exchange against S$. Disclaimer: (1) These rates are the average of buying and selling interbank rates quoted around midday in Singapore.
Transfer your CIMB Fforex account funds conveniently within other banks in Malaysia. The exchange may differ from the rate in effect on the date of the.
OCBC Bank Foreign Exchange Rates. Hong Leong Bank Malaysia strategi forex profit terus a host of personal financing products and services ranging from loans, credit cards, online banking, mobile banking and more.
United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Bhd. | Bank Negara Malaysia.


Any SEO worth his salt knows that link building is the key to ranking higher in the Search Engines. So, rather than reiterating the importance of link building in SEO, I'll move one step further and tell you about maintaining link diversity while building links. Because it is crucial, and also because many of us often don't understand its importance. So, why is link diversity important?
The answer has to do with the SEO holy grail that is natural backlink profile. When a searchbot finds that a big chunk of all the links pointing to your site come from one site in particular, it doesn't need to be a rocket scientist before it concludes that your are hand in glove with the said site, and that the link profile you've established is far from being natural, even if that were not the case. Needless to say, it can go downhill from there in no time, and you can consequently bid adieu to your dream of ranking high, or ranking at all for that matter! Because hell hath no fury like a search engine duped, and you may find your site being dropped from the index before you can say SEO! Now, even if things weren't to take such a bad turn, a diverse link profile will get better of a homogeneous on any given day.
Research shows that search engines love sites high on the link diversity factor, which they equate with authority and trust, and index them frequently. If that doesn't motivate you to increase your link diversity, then you are probably one of those people who won't even blink if Matt Cutts himself offers to index your site!
Build Links From Different Domains: It may seem that number matters more when it comes to links, but don't be fooled by this ideology when you are building links. According to Rand Fishkin and other eminent SEOs, aside from mimicking a natural link profile, perpetuating link diversity can also help your site earn some extra search engine love. For example, a site with ten links from ten different sites will stand a better chance of being favored by search engines than a site with twenty links from one site.
Build Links From Different Kinds Of Sites: By this I mean, ensure your link building strategy is a mélange of all the available methods. You know what they are, link bait, blog commenting on do-follow blogs, directory submissions, and guest blogging – do a bit of everything, but never make the mistake of doing just one thing. Links from directories (or blogs or forums) alone don't a natural link profile make, and don't get me started on how search engines always find such homogeneous links a little suspect.
Build Links From Domains With Different IP Addresses: But in your effort to build links from different domains that are also heterogeneous in nature, don't forget to check if they are hosted on different servers. If they aren't, the point of link diversity becomes moot. Besides, there is the added connotation of patronizing link farms, and any association with a link farm, real or imagined, can severely hamper your SEO efforts.
Build Links To Your Inner Pages As Well: Building a naturally diverse link profile shouldn't be a practice restricted to the homepage. Nothing would be more unnatural than having a homepage with a diverse link profile with nary a diverse link between all the inner pages. In addition to the professed task of increasing diversity, this can double as a great opportunity to deep link, the benefits of which are so numerous that they warranted a separate post altogether.
Build Links From Relevant Pages: Fair warning: Exercise diversity only within the limits of established linking guidelines. And by that I mean, no matter how 'diverse' a site may appear, if it isn't even tangentially relevant to your site, don't link to it, especially if you are hoping for a reciprocal link. When you engage in other forms of link building, like blog commenting and guest blogging, this is a consideration to be mindful of. As Eric Ward rightly puts it "for link diversity to have any lasting impact on traffic or rank it must be dependent upon the subject relevance of that diversity". Your sports blog being linked to by a sports equipment site probably won't raise the hackles of that errant bot hanging out at your site, but your sports blog linking to and being linked to by an e-commerce site selling Victorian lace doilies, that, very conveniently, also happens to be run by a friend will certainly get its goat. Search engines don't get how nifty nepotism can be and insist on building links naturally; yeah, make our lives more difficult!
Build Links With Different Anchor Text: While you are out diversifying your links, will it do to service them with just one anchor text, with no room for, say, diversifying them? Now, you'd probably argue that an anchor text being used repeatedly will only help you rank for that keyword. True enough. But building links with just one anchor text is the SEO equivalent of placing all your eggs in the same basket – not a good idea. So, this is where I introduce you to the radical concept of targeting multiple keywords! That's right, it can be done! Build your links with as many variations of your targeted keywords as possible, besides helping diversify things, it will add to the 'naturalness' of your link profile. Build links to your e-commerce site selling sports shoes, with kinds of anchor text like "Red Sports Shoes", "Basketball Shoes", "Tennis Shoes", "Running Shoes", "Children's Sports Shoes" etc. and you'll find your site ranking for four different search queries instead of just one.
If you find building links hard, building diverse ones will be even more so, which is probably why search engines favor them so much. So follow the points mentioned above & see your link profile diversify… you can thank me later sweeties!
If you have built anchor text links from various sites with same keywords. Would you benefit from going back to those sites and just changing the anchor text on some of the sites. Or are the bots clever enough to spot it as just anchor test a change.?
Just as you are able to change content on a page to make it more relevant to the visitor, you should also be able to change anchor text to make it more relevant to both visitors and search engines.


text:
God Bless the Brits … Runners in Sunday's London Marathon Show Support For the City of Boston, the Victims of the Bombing at the Boston Marathon
A special shout out to our friend across The Pond. God bless the Brits and their much appreciated remembrance and support honoring of the city of Boston, the victims of the Boston bombing and the Boston Marathon. The London Marathon took place Sunday without incident, thank God. As reported at the NY Times, 6 days and 3,300 miles from the bombings in Boston, the London Marathon was held Sunday, but it was obvious there was a connection between the two events as the people of London paid respect to those affected and the victims in the Boston marathon bombings. It is a blessing how sports can bring people and countries together. If the terrorists ever thought they would alter our lives and make us live in fear, they could never have been more wrong. You have only made us stronger.
A special shout out back to the Brits for the kindness and support you showed the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings
At the start of the race, the runner at the London Marathon paid tribute to victims of the Boston Marathon attack by observing a 30-second moment if silence before the elite men's race and mass start. As one individual tweeted, over 37,000 runners and all of the spectators bowed their heads in collective absolute silence (see video here) as they paid respect to the victims and Boston. Simply breathtaking and respectful. The London Marathon officials also pledged to donate £2 for every finisher to The One Fund Boston, a charity set up to help victims of the Boston marathon bombings. By race end this will probably amount to about £70,000 – over $100,000, that will be raised.
London Marathon Pays respect to the Victims of the Boston Marathon Bombings
Geoff Wightman, the event commentator, announced over loudspeakers before the half-minute silence:
"Marathon-running is a global sport. It unites runners and supporters on every continent in pursuit of a common challenge and in the spirit of friendship and fellowship.
"This week the world marathon family was shocked and saddened by the events at the Boston Marathon. In a few moments a whistle will sound and we will join together in silence to remember our friends and colleagues for whom a day of joy turned into a day of sadness.
"Let us now show our respect and support for the victims of the tragedy in Boston."
Andrew Kaczynski of Buzz Feed has 25 of the best pictures from the marathon. We have provided a couple that we thought were the best, but please go to Buzz Feed and see them all, they are fantastic.
Our favorite for obvious reasons … fellow UK Monkeys telling terrorist exactly what they can do
More from Buzz Feed, many of the runners in the London Marathon dedicated their race to the victims of the Boston bombing attack and showed that they were "British Strong" in coming out for the London Marathon and do our bit and show a bit of solidarity and also show that we're not going to cower with fear to terrorism.
A number of athletes dedicated their races to those affected by the Boston attack. American wheelchair racer Tatyana McFadden was in her hotel room after winning the women's race when the two bombs went off on the finish line.
"I'll be carrying them in my heart as I am running through the course in London," she said. "It's important as an elite runner with a disability to be a role model for those who are newly injured and it's important for me to be an advocate for those. I've lived with many challenges in my life, every single day and so I know something of what it's like."
Another competitor was former England cricket captain Andrew Strauss, who said he wanted to represent the people of Boston and prove that "terrorism doesn't work". He told the BBC:
"It's a horrendous tragedy and I think this is an opportunity for all of us that are involved in the London Marathon to come out and do our bit and show a bit of solidarity and also show that we're not going to cower with fear."
Posted April 22, 2013 by Scared Monkeys
Boston Marathon Bombing, Great Britain, Radical Islam, Sports, Terrorism, War on Terror, You Tube - VIDEO | no comments
Double-Amputee Marine Jose Luis Sanchez Carries the American Flag at the 2017 Boston Marathon (VIDEO)
Photos of Before and After Bomb Blast at Boston Marathon
Boston Marathon Bomb DNA Does Not Match Tamerlan Tsarnaev's Wife, Al-Qaeda Magazine & Other Jihadist Material Found on Her Computer … But FBI Still Wants to Chat, but Katherine Russell Has Stopped Talking
New York Woman Audrea Gause Charged With Defrauding Boston Marathon Bombing 'One Fund' Of $480,000
New York Times Shows Sympathy For Boston Terrorists … Where is the NY Times Sympathy for the Families of 8 year old Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, Lu Lingzi & Slain MIT Officer Sean Collier?


, International Frequency Register (M. IFR). R.1. -2: Increased numb ...... assistance of its regional offices when necessary, cover all Member States ...... 1 Abkhazia, Georgia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, Georgia are.
, Fig.5 Destroyed Georgian tank in Tskhinvali  ..... pursuing, we try to cover all three pillars, not just the academic one, ...... (IFR) conditions;. 8.


text:
Jimmy Wales Really Wants You to Start Editing Wikipedia Articles
As part of Wikipedia's goal to reverse the decrease in input from the site's editors and actually increase the pool of editors to 200,000 within the next three years, the world's most popular encyclopedia has launched a new and simplified editor that the website hopes will encourage more contributions from users.
The goal of the new "visual editor" lets potential editors circumvent the task of learning the unique wiki markup language necessary to edit pages on Wikipedia and instead get right to the editing. Although Wikipedia's special markup language isn't terribly difficult to grasp, at least compared to other technical languages, having to learn any unfamiliar languages simply in order to make small updates to a site can be heavily preventive if not an interest-killer altogether. As Wikipedia has often embraced inclusion instead of elitism, the new visual editor grants virtually anybody with a computer, a keyboard, and some internets to start editing articles.
The visual editor was built based on feedback from Wikipedians about how to improve the editing process in order to make it as user-friendly as possible. "We want the process of learning how to edit to be trivial, so our volunteers, both new and experienced, can devote themselves to what they edit," Wikipedia said in a blog post that announced the new visual editor.
To build this iteration of our open-source visual editor, we have been working with some of the team from Wikia, a collaborative publisher that operates the largest network of video game, entertainment and lifestyle wikis in the world. We both believe that this kind of tool should be built not just for the Wikimedia wiki projects, but for everyone using MediaWiki software, and when it's done we look forward to including the visual editor "out of the box" for anyone setting up a wiki with our software.
Wikipedia provided an example of the new editor's interface:
The new editor seems to be to wiki text what a rich text editor is to coding HTML for webpages: it's not something that everybody will want to use, especially if you want to be very specific about your markups, but it is a simplified way to make editing accessible to people without a background in the programming language.
More changes are likely to come to the visual editor as Wikipedia works with its community of users to identify any nagging bugs that show up, but in all this is a good direction for the website if it really hopes to cement its legitimacy as a source of information. As Wikipedia co-founder tweeted yesterday, this is "epically important" to the website attaining its goal of increasing editor activity and signals Wikipedia's dedication to achieving some of its other goals, like improving the percentage of female editors and increasing contributions from beyond North America and Europe.
It's too bad that there's not a visual editor that Wikipedia could concoct that would efface the guy-centric culture of the tech world.
Tags Jimmy Wales technical language visual editor wiki markup wikipedia
Facebook Follows Suit, Commits To California User Privacy Initiative
Lightning Strikes New York's Empire State Building