Investigation of Long Term User Engagement in Disease Specific Social Networks

Aim:

To investigate patterns of user engagement associated with online, disease specific social networks. Specific areas of investigation include:

  1. How long does a user stay engaged?
  2. How does membership grow over time?
  3. Are engagement patterns similar for earlier/later registrants?

Background:

Numerous commentators have predicted that the next big healthcare developments will come not from pharmaceuticals or medical devices, but from disease specific social networks that allow patients to track key health metrics, share insights and generate wisdom from crowds.

Since longevity of user engagement can be used as a proxy for user benefit (i.e. patients only engage if they are deriving a commensurate reward for their efforts), this study has been designed to gather key statistics from a well recognized disease specific social network in order to better assess the validity of these predictions.

Methods:

A random sample of patients was selected from members of the Multiple Sclerosis (MS) community at “Patients Like Me” (PLM), a highly awarded social network dedicated to supporting patients with life changing diseases. PLM’s MS community was first launched in 2007, and was chosen due to its length of existence and its ability to represent user dynamics in a more mature community.

151 patients were randomly selected from 2265 PLM MS community members with a publicly available profile. Sampling was conducted by sorting users in order of most recently registered to least recently registered. A randomly generated seed between 1 and 15 was used to sample the first patient from this sorted list, with every 15th patient thereafter being sampled systematically. This sampling methodology was undertaken to ensure users were consistently sampled across the lifespan of the community. The date of last login and the date of last update for each sampled user were identified from their publicly available profile pages.

Patients that registered with PLM more than 2 years ago with a last login date more than 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months later than their registration date were flagged as being active at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months respectively. Patients that registered more than 12 months ago were analyzed in a similar way for activity at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. The same process was repeated for patients registered with PLM more than 6, 3 and 1 months.

Results:

Table 1: New Registrants PMS MS / Qtr

# in Sample Est. Growth
Q4 09 8 900
Q3 09 13 1463
Q2 09 12 1350
Q1 09 15 1688
Q4 08 24 2700
Q3 08 19 2138
Q2 08 12 1350
Q1 08 18 2025

Table 2: Engagement Activity / All Users

Months 1 3 6 12 24
Users Count 145 142 136 108 30
Engaged Users 89 69 55 39 8
Disengaged 39% 51% 60% 64% 73%

Table 3: Engagement Activity / User Registered in Past 12m

Months 1 3 6
User Count 37 34 28
Engaged Users 14 9 5
Disengaged 62% 74% 82%

Discussion:

Recognizing that (1) using last login date may over-estimate length of user engagement since login does not always mean contribution of new data or interaction with other users, and (2) users with public profiles may not be representative of the overall PLM MS population, these results nonetheless provide a number of potential insights into how users engage with disease specific social networks:

a) Disease based social networks may struggle to obtain viral growth dynamics

After more than two years in operation, Table 1 suggests that PLM’s MS community appears to be – at best – maintaining a linear state of user growth and, at worst, experiencing growth rate deceleration. These statistics present in stark contrast with published statistics for social networks like Facebook and Twitter that have accelerated growth dramatically after their first year of operation. These figures suggest that either (a) users are not sufficiently connected to enough eligible non-users to mobilize them for participation in PLM MS in significant numbers, or (b) users do not derive sufficient benefit / engage sufficiently with the social network to warrant their mobilizing friends to join.

This implies that the marginal cost of patient recruitment for disease specific social networks may not diminish over time as the user base grows. This increases the pressure on networks like PLM to  generate increased revenue per capita as the membership grows, rather than hoping to achieve profitability through diminishing patient acquisition costs.

b) Most users do not engage with disease specific social networks for long periods of time.

As highlighted in Table 2, although users who join PLM MS are assumed to be more engaged in personal health management than those who do not, more than one third of users still disengage from the network within the first month of joining. By 3-months, 50% of users have disengaged. By 6-months, 60% have disengaged – although attrition thereafter seems to get slower with 27% of patients still logging into the network 2 years after registering.

These figures appear to indicate that patients engage early with the PML MS community, or not at all. Those users who disengage early may have tried to fill a short term information need, but been unable to derive sufficient ongoing benefit to sustain their engagement. Further profiling of this “hyper engaged” subset may help social networks like PLM maximize the commercial value of their user base and/or direct patient recruitment efforts towards the acquisition of more engaged users. These figures also sound a note of caution, however, for organizations seeking to leverage social networks to communicate with more patients since more than two-thirds of published user numbers may no longer be active in the community.

c) Later adopters are less likely to develop sustained engagement

Interestingly, of patients that registered with PML MS in the most recent 12-months, 62% of users had disengaged within 1 months, and 82% of users had disengaged by 6 months – significantly higher disengagement rates than 39% and 60% respectively for the overall PLM MS population.

These statistics suggest the disease specific social networks like PLM may be at risk of generating lower user engagement rates over time, which – when coupled with static or declining growth rates – may cause challenges in maintaining engaged user numbers over time. Possible explanations for this engagement behavior may be due (a) changes to the way PLM has approached recruitment of patients over time, (b) personal involvement of early members in the development of the PLM MS community – resulting in greater initial commitment to the service, or (c) the possibility that early members have, through their online behavior, created a culture that may not be attractive or engaging for all users.

CONCLUSION

Despite high expectations for the growth of patient-centric disease specific social networks, indicative metrics derived from PLM’s MS community present three significant challenges to their growth and cast doubt over the level of benefit experienced by most users. These challenges include (a) lack of visible viral growth within existing communities, (b) early disengagement by most community members, and (c) diminished patterns of engagement amongst newer community members. Whereas there is no doubt that some users can derive significant benefit and support from a disease-specific online community, these challenges will almost certainly require substantial investigation and intervention before disease specific social networks can take on a more significant role in the clinical landscape.

Advertisement

8 Responses to “Investigation of Long Term User Engagement in Disease Specific Social Networks”

  1. My first internet-industry job was to try to measure the churn of the dominant online services, such as AOL, Prodigy, Compuserve (hey, it was 1994).

    It was impossible to get straight answers from the companies themselves and data was scarce. A lot of people suspected the books were being cooked to make the services look good (and we were right to be suspicious, of course). There was a LOT of churn in those early days as people experimented with their 14.4 modems. Most of those early companies are gone now. It seems almost churlish to recall how they hid the truth about how few subscribers they were holding on to long-term.

    I think that’s where we are now with Health 2.0. I think it’s important to be realistic about the potential for these early services (both their upside & their downside). I think we have better tools now to measure growth rates and churn than we had in 1994. I welcome this analysis. But I also take the long view. Sure there was churn in 1994 when a tiny percentage of Americans went online, but history shows that we needn’t have worried about it.

    In closing, can I just say that this is the darkest blog I have ever seen? I just saw Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief this weekend and am feeling very Persephone-in-the-Underwold right now. Take my comments with that in mind — I’m a natural optimist.

  2. I read the text and Susannah’s comment with interest.
    1) How ironic that Darth is using social media to spread distrust of social media!
    2) What is the alternative to online communities for longitudinal knowledge?
    3) What percent of patients belong to patient associations? Should we disband patient associations for insufficient penetration of the patient population?
    Finally: 4) If there is one factor that is associated with quality of health information, it’s transparency. So, why is Darth not being transparent about his identity? Sounds like an enemy of a specific site that hosts an MS community. Susannah, I think you know who Darth is…otherwise, I’m not sure why you’d answer

    • I am not trying to spread distrust of social media but believe it is time we put some data behind it. That is the only way we can learn more, improve what works and pull back from what doesnt.

      Nobody is saying we should disband online communities, and I hope nobody interprets my position as saying so. As this data shows, online communities can maintain very long engagement for some patients. What we need to do is have less hype and more analysis of who those patients are, and how we can make the rest more active or offer them something else they are more likely to engage with. Patientlikeme is clearly a community where a lot is working for some people, and less is working for others.

      I hope you do not have a problem with this.

      No, I’m not the enemy of any specific site. Patientlikeme happens to make some of its information public to their credit (unlike so many others) so it was easy to do an analysis. It would have been unfair to look at their newer communities or ALS where so many people unfortunately pass away. If you can suggest other services I can do this with I would be happy to dedicate the time.

      And if it matters at all who I am versus what I write, not all fans of the dark side are men or people that Susannah knows.

    • I assure you I don’t know who DarthMed is and I don’t care as long as s/he brings interesting ideas to the discussion.

      One reason I responded (and tweeted) is b/c this is not the first time I’ve heard this critique of patient communities, but it is the first time I’ve seen it posted publicly and with some data behind the assertion (albeit with the limitations listed). I doubt PLM is afraid of this kind of critique and nor should we shy away from it, but rather bring it forward to be knocked down or confirmed.

  3. Very timely piece DarthMed and well worth continued exploration of granular truths. Interesting timing as Phil Baumann and I dove into the mercurial nature of online communities earlier today at http://bit.ly/9USusd.

    A disciplined and stimulative narrative.

    Thanks.

  4. As well as leading a healthcare team at a research firm, I also work alongside a social media agency and found this fascinating. It’s something that has personally always nagged at the back of my mind when looking at online engagement with patient groups. I also really like the academic approach and summary.

    To an extent I agree with Susannah’s point about the ‘filtering’ of early social media initiatives over time in the way that early hot tickets in web ebbed and flowed. There was a time when Friends Reunited was the hottest ticket in town, but many of us visited it once and then got bored. Some days FaceBook feels like it could go the same way.

    Where you’re taking really specific communities (like disease-focussed patient groups) there is a real danger that the critical mass for a self-sustaining community cannot be achieved. Is it the case for instance, that people that have a disease have enough in common to bind them together? In most cases the disease itself may not be enough to create any form of cohesion.

    It will probably be the case that the services that will survive are the ones that can achieve critical mass by providing something of value to their target audiences. Where these target audiences are too small, it may be that the critical mass cannot be achieved and those particular ventures will close or will need to find new ways (possibly combining on and off line) to keep people engaged.

    Really tight community management, and having a moderator / manager that provokes, stimulates, entertains and engages is also central to that kind of strategy.

  5. Online consumer engagement in health is indeed in its early days – we have already learned a lot and and we still have a lot to learn.

    Whether this is for the purpose of a Personal Health Record or an online community, long term consumer loyalty or ‘stickiness’ or engagement is likely to be proportional to the perceived benefit received by the consumer. How benefit is measured or valued will vary, consumer by consumer, and through various phases of their life.

    There are identifiable segments in the community: those that are knowledge hungry such as pregnant women and those with young families; and then there are the ‘worried well’ and those with chronic illnesses who are seeking to better manage their condition etc. Many of their ‘hot buttons’ can also be identified – issues, problems and triggers can be targetted by tools/communities/PHRs which will generate ‘stickiness’ if the online they can provide support or assistance.

    In my limited experiences with PHR development, a passive health record is nice and will inevitably be useful if one can persist in filling it out, but not many find entering a vaccination history scintillating stuff, especially if it is for every member of the family. Many passive PHRs will not be completed simply because of human nature – we become bored with it quickly and usually won’t keep it up to date. However, integrate that record with autopopulation from external sources and there is usually more enthusiasm, and increased potential for ongoing use.

    But by far the biggest winner in my opinion is where the consumer is engaged dynamically with the tool, so that they feel that they are receiving direct benefit – whether that is community connectedness, quality information or best of all, direct feedback on improving their situation, well-being and health condition. That perceived benefit will vary per individual, over time and current prevailing circumstances.

    So even if we get it right at one point in time, the interest and ‘stickiness’ will inevitably wax and wane over time. This is a hard thing to analyse – simple tools and numbers will not reflect this human journey.

  6. Pedro L. González Says:

    Personal Healthcare engagement is still in it’s first days!! How can we say that online engagement is poor?
    Majority of humans are still nos conscious of their power to change things and to modify their realtionship with their bodies.
    Majority of online consumer still go to the network in search of that miracolous cure or defintive solution, instead of thinkin about the inner power they have to adopt healthy lifestyles and make changes in the way they deal with disease.
    I have writen a post about it in my blog: http://tinyurl.com/yhfbkmn
    No initiative will have succes unti we tackle with this profound cutural and religious attotude towards our health.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.