Social Influence, Addictions and the Internet: The Potential of Web 2.0 Technologies in Enhancing Treatment for Alcohol/Other Drug use Problems

Mark Deady¹, Frances Kay-Lambkin^1*, Louise Thornton², Amanda Baker² and Maree Teesson¹

¹National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

²Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Australia

*Corresponding Author:

Frances Kay-Lambkin
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre
University of New South Wales, Australia
Tel: +61 2 9385 0320
Fax: +61 2 9385 0222
E-mail: f.kaylambkin@unsw.edu.au

Received May 31, 2012; Accepted July 06, 2012; Published July 10, 2012

Citation: Deady M, Kay-Lambkin F, Thornton L, Baker A, Teesson M (2012) Social Influence, Addictions and the Internet: The Potential of Web 2.0 Technologies in Enhancing Treatment for Alcohol/Other Drug use Problems. J Addict Res Ther S8:002. doi:10.4172/2155-6105.S8-002

Copyright: © 2012 Deady M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy

Abstract

The past decade has seen the proliferation of e-health applications across disease categories. With the emergence of the next generation of Internet-based applications, Web 2.0, there are increasing opportunities for integrating these technologies into treatment approaches for alcohol/other drug use problems, in a way that engages and empowers like never before. No evidence currently exists to demonstrate the benefits of Web 2.0 applications, such as social networking and social media, on alcohol/other drug use problems. However, social learning and influence theories point to the possible mechanisms of action and effectiveness. More research is urgently required to examine the potential of Web 2.0 applications on alcohol/other drug use problems.

Introduction

In 2011, 78% of the Australian population of almost 22 million were Internet users [1], with the highest rates of access reported among young people 93%, [2]. Similar rates of Internet use are reported in the USA (77% in 2010), representing close to 240 million people [3].

The Internet has become an important source of health information and support. It is estimated that 80% of Internet users in the USA look for health information online, representing 59% of all adult Americans. Among people aged 18-29 these figures rise to 92% of individuals online, and 71% of all individuals, who will seek health information online [4]. After e-mail and the use of search engines, searching for health information is the most popular online activity for adults [5]. People also frequently engage with online communities to access support for health-related problems [6], using a variety of forums and social networking sites, such as Facebook [7,8].

There is great, but as yet unrealized, potential for the field of addictions in integrating technological applications into the treatment environment. For example, research testing the efficacy of computerized psychological treatments for alcohol/other drug use (AOD) problems has indicated that, coupled with brief weekly therapist support, computer-delivered treatment is as successful in reducing alcohol, cannabis use and depression as face-to-face delivered treatment, even among those with severe symptoms [9,10]. In particular, technology-based interventions for depression are at least twice as effective when offered in the context of some form of guidance or support [11], however the addition of support potentially decreases the accessibility of these important forms of treatment. The emergence of Web 2.0 technology may provide a solution that incorporates all of the convenience and efficacy of internet-based treatment delivery, whilst providing a platform for the development and maintenance of social connectedness and support that are essential mechanisms for effective treatment. However, very little research exists examining the use of these technologies in relation to AOD use problems and their treatment. This review aims to summarize the literature on the use and potential of Web 2.0 applications, as a social influence tool, in the context of health behaviour change, and to apply this literature to the AOD field [12].

Social Influence in Alcohol/Other Drug use Problems

Social learning and social influence theories suggest that individuals learn within a social context, with changes in thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and behaviors resulting from interactions with other individuals or groups [12,13]. In the context of addiction, these models highlight the importance of social factors in the initiation and maintenance of problematic AOD use, suggesting that misuse is a learned behaviour that is acquired through a process of observation, modelling, imitation, and social reinforcement.

Evidence suggests that the onset and development of problematic AOD use, which occurs most often in adolescence and young adulthood, is driven by psychosocial factors [14]. For example, twin studies indicate that social phenomenon such as contagion override any genetic predisposition to alcohol misuse in a young person [15]. Longitudinal evidence also suggests that social influences are more important than cognitive and behavioural factors in predicting initial involvement with alcohol [16]. Two of the most significant risk factors for problem drinking are also social; exposure to a pro-drinking social environment and holding positive expectancies about alcohol use [17,18], with peer groups being more powerful than parents in this regard [19,20]. Peers are believed to contribute to adolescent AOD use both directly and indirectly through several complex mechanisms, including modelling; interpersonal persuasion; shaping norms, attitudes, and values; and by providing opportunities and support for AOD use [20-23].

It has been demonstrated that social influences can also shape positive AOD-related expectancies [24]. Positive alcohol-related expectancies (such as, “drinking helps you relax”) are a more important predictor of alcohol misuse than are negative expectancies [25], and have been associated with initiation and escalation of adolescent alcohol use [26,27]. Perceptions of alcohol use behaviour, even where they are made in error, can be as influential in the development of drinking norms in young people as actual observation of drinking behaviours. For instance, Prinstein and Wang [28] reported that adolescents’ perceptions of peer behaviours related to alcohol strongly predicted their own. However, this perception was an overestimation of their peers’ actual behavior. This ‘false consensus’ effect, is associated with higher risk of engagement in AOD use behaviours among adolescents [29].

For several decades, social influence theory has also been used to promote positive and desirable AOD-related behaviours, most notably in the context of prevention and intervention programs for substance use disorders [30-33]. Although early use of social influence models in the AOD field were largely limited to smoking prevention in young people, the success of these programs has led to the approach being applied more broadly [34-37]. For example, therapeutic communities in drug rehabilitation programs provide the opportunity for people with AOD use problems to observe other people using positive social skills, and the chance to practice using new methods of social interactions [38]. Teaching and practicing appropriate social behaviours in these settings will assist the person to develop more open and honest ways of having their needs met, and feeling more at ease in society. Similarly, therapists have drawn on social influence theory, particularly in terms of modelling of healthy behaviours, in addiction and in the treatment of mental health problems [e.g., 39-41]. AOD treatments employing motivation enhancement techniques will frequently use the “decisional balance technique”, designed to encourage consideration of the importance of a range of environmental influences and personal or social factors in maintaining and changing AOD use behaviours. This technique has been shown in research to be associated with the strongest improvements in AOD use disorders of the motivational approaches [42].

Social Networking and Health

Recent advances in web and mobile technologies offer tremendous opportunities for individuals to connect online and provide a new environment for social influence to occur. No longer are websites merely places that web users visit, rather they are destinations where people interact, contribute, share and actively participate [43-45]. This new epoch of Internet use is known as Web 2.0; ‘‘an umbrella term that is used to refer to a new era of web-enabled applications that are built around user-generated or user-manipulated content, such as wikis, blogs, podcasts and social networking sites’’ [46]. The term was introduced in 2004 to describe the shift in consumer demand and application functionality, with the main difference from Web 1.0 being interactivity [47]. The terms “social media” and “social networking” are often used to describe the tools, applications, and functions associated with Web 2.0, which make it easier for people to listen, interact, engage and collaborate with each other using the Internet.

The growth of online social networks and their penetration into everyday life has been immense. A nationally representative survey of American youth found that 73% of online teens and 72% of young adults now use social networking websites [48], with a survey among college students in the USA revealing that approximately 97% at least own a social networking profile [49]. The diffusion of Web 2.0 into the youth population is thus almost complete, highlighting this technology as an important tool in reaching young people, a notoriously difficult group to encourage into traditional health settings. Social networking also appears to transcend class and cultural groupings in society, with Kontos and colleagues [50] reporting no significant differences in use of social networking sites according to race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Facebook is the most widely used social networking platform with approximately 800 million users globally [8]. Social networking has been described as “the most significant advance in persuasion since the radio was invented in the 1890s” [51], capturing 97% of social networking users and 60% of all Internet users [52].

As social support, integration, influence and social networks play important roles in behaviour change and emotional health [53], social media offer new opportunities for identification and intervention regarding health behaviours [54]. Use of the growing number of Web 2.0 applications is increasing, particularly for health wikis (e.g., Medpedia); health-focussed social networking sites (e.g., Patients Like Me, Trusera) and support groups (e.g., Daily Strength, Rareshare); health social bookmarking (e.g., Peer Clip); ratings and reviews of healthcare providers and organizations (e.g., iMedix, Vivu); electronic health record repositories (e.g., Cure Together); general social networking sites (e.g., Flu Tweets), and other data platforms (e.g., Health-Map, Sick City); health video-sharing websites (e.g., icyou.com) and podcasts; health-focused blogs; and health topic-based groups within virtual communities such as Second Life [55]. Despite this, only a small body of research has investigated the impacts of participating in these kinds of interactive health-related sites on key health outcomes.

Two studies, for example, have found engagement with online communities to be associated with improved social and emotional wellbeing, improved quality of life and more active coping [56,57]. Online communities offer users the opportunity to connect with others in similar circumstances, even if these people are not locally available, and can be more convenient than accessing support in person [58]. Web 2.0 sites offering online peer support have been postulated to improve mental health, including depression, through the provision of social support [59], and the use of online social networking has been found to be positively related to increased self-esteem, satisfaction and wellbeing among college students [60].

Like any tool or intervention, the key to its success lies in engaging the target population with the intervention and retaining them on a regular and ongoing basis. Web 2.0 applications appear to meet this challenge, with research indicating that the majority of social network users update their profiles at least weekly for an average of five hours, and one third report daily use [48]. Further, the more often people visit and interact with social networking sites, the better the potential outcomes. For example, a web survey of 2,603 randomly selected college students found positive relationships between intensity of Facebook use and students’ life satisfaction, social trust, civic engagement, and political participation [61]. Furthermore, it has been suggested that ‘competition’ in maintaining good health in patient-to-patient social media exchanges may also give rise to more positive outcomes. For instance, PatientsLikeMe.com allows individuals to display graphs of their health data and other characteristics that are not perceived to be overly private by the patient [62]. However, this theory remains untested.

As a result of these promising early findings, health researchers have turned their attention to how Web 2.0 applications might be used to encourage uptake of existing evidence-based treatment programs. In a recent meta-analysis of Internet-based behaviour change interventions, Webb et al. [63] found that tailored text messages were highly effective in promoting interaction and engagement with a treatment program, which was associated with more positive health outcomes [64]. Web 2.0 applications can work in a similar way. Chatterjee and Price [65] suggest that social media, particularly when combined with mobile devices, has the potential to more intimately and interactively guide adherence with care plans or behaviour modification interventions. However, very little research has directly tested this approach for any health behaviour, and none examines its use in the context of addiction.

Richardson et al. [6] conducted one of the only randomized controlled trials to test the effect of online social networking on health outcomes, adding a social network component to an Internet-mediated walking program among 324 adults at risk of cardiovascular disease. Participants randomized to the ‘online social networking’ condition could post and read messages on the intervention website, while those in the ‘no social networking’ condition could not. Both conditions increased their average daily steps, with no significant differences between the groups. However, online social networking participants remained engaged in the program significantly longer than their counterparts and were more likely to complete the program. This suggests Web 2.0 technologies, and social networking applications in particular, may help improve patient engagement, a frequent challenge among people with AOD use problems. Even in the broader health context, attrition remains a significant problem for existing efficacious e-health interventions for behaviour change and emotion regulation [66-68]. Eysenbach [69] suggests that online social networking may be an important conduit to increasing engagement with existing online self-monitoring and health improvement programs.

Social networking sites such as Facebook may indeed be an ideal way in which to engage people, with a view to influencing problematic AOD use behaviours. These sites have the potential to function as a platform for promoting and establishing (positive and negative) norms of behaviour, particularly among young people who are the most prolific users of these applications [70]. For instance, in a sample of 500, 18-year-olds on MySpace, 41% displayed references to alcohol use in a two and half month period [71]. A subsequent qualitative study suggested that adolescents often viewed alcohol references displayed on other individuals’ profiles as accurate and influential representations of alcohol use [72].

Adding further weight to the acceptability of internet-based approaches to AOD-related issues is the Climate Schools program; a collection of web-based AOD prevention courses delivered in schools by educators to promote student health and wellbeing. The evidence for school based prevention programs has recently been reviewed [73]. In this review of 53 trials, six of the 11 trials evaluating alcohol-specific interventions showed some evidence of effectiveness compared with the standard school curriculum, as did 14 of the 39 trials evaluating generic interventions which showed significant reductions on alcohol use measures. Included in this review was the Climate Schools program, for which acluster randomised controlled trial among 764 school students (13-14 years of age) was conducted in 10 Australian secondary schools. Results revealed significant improvements in alcohol and cannabis knowledge, a reduction in average weekly alcohol consumption and a reduction in frequency of drinking to excess in those students completing the alcohol and cannabis courses relative to those who completed their usual health subject. These differences were maintained at six and twelve month follow-up. Climate Schools was also found to be acceptable by teachers and students as a means of delivering drug education in schools [74-76].

Proposed Mechanisms of Effectiveness of Web 2.0

Although research has not specifically addressed the use of Web 2.0 in an addictions context, experts suggest that online social networking among people with chronic medical problems is associated with enhanced feelings of empowerment and increased social support relative to those accessing information and support via traditional faceto- face means [77]. It is proposed that the following mechanisms set the scene for the such benefits [78].

The use of information as power: Access to the plethora of information online means that people are better informed about their health problems, which is associated with increased treatment compliance, patient satisfaction and health outcomes [79]. Like never before, Web 2.0 applications mean that lay-people (i.e. non-medical professionals) can use the Internet to create and share new information about medical conditions, based on their individual experience of illness. Importantly, this gives a greater voice to people with health problems, with greater recognition of this voice coming from health professionals [80].

Aggregation into power groups: Traditionally, people with illnesses, particularly chronic and stigmatizing illness such as mental or AOD use disorders, remain socially isolated from others experiencing these illnesses, and from the general community at large [80]. However, the Internet, and in particular Web 2.0 applications provide a platform for sharing illness experiences such that illness is an increasingly public experience. The positive relationship between strong and supportive social relationships and health outcomes (and conversely, the negative relationship of isolation and limited social networks with poor health) has been well demonstrated [81-83]. Thus, the potential of social media to enable the formation of peer-support groups online is a significant advantage, as both off- and online support groups have been found to be beneficial in achieving sustained behaviour change [84-86], with the potential for reducing stigma and isolation. For example, in an analysis of patient messages on the online support community, PatientsLikeMe. com, exchanges between patients were found to be beneficial for selfmanagement of chronic diseases [87,88]. Models of social support suggest that behaviour change is mediated in part through information exchange, instrumental or emotional support, stress buffering, or improved self-efficacy [89].

The ability to control the relationship with organizations and other individuals: The freedom to control one’s choices in nonlinear environments has been shown to enhance comprehension and engagement, often by enabling the person to avoid information and interactions they feel are irrelevant or uninteresting [90].

Involvement in the creation of online content: Personalization required via social media necessitates interactivity, and this interactivity is believed to increase engagement by focussing user attention on content [91,92]. This interactivity has also been associated with increased levels of cognitive elaboration and recall of content [93].

The potential for use in AOD Treatment

Many people experiencing AOD use problems report isolation from family, friends and society, and a narrowing of behaviors and experiences in favour of those associated with acquiring and using the substance and recovering from its effects. A range of unmet social needs exist, including social stigmatization, poor access to treatment services, and a general lack of knowledge about available treatment options and advances, and research related to their problems [94]. In particular, people with AOD problems can become immersed in the daily aspects of managing their use, becoming increasingly cut off from conventional life, with nothing outside of their use to look forward to [80]. Often as a result of this, engaging people in drug and alcohol treatment settings is more difficult than for other health behaviors. This makes accessing treatment services, keeping appointments, and developing and maintaining motivation a challenge [95]. For example, the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing in Australia reported that 88% of the adult population meeting criteria for a substance use disorder did not seek any treatment, and of those who did, most saw their general practitioner, rather than specialist drug and alcohol treatment services (8%) [96]. At each stage of the treatment process (access, retention, alliance), social factors are suggested to have an impact on the likelihood of engagement for people with AOD disorders. Thus, Web 2.0 applications can reach out to people with AOD use problems, regardless of severity, serving to alleviate boredom, assist in broadening the scope of experiences to positive non-drug related activities, and to encourage and reinforce treatment seeking efforts and benefits. In this way, emotional support can be offered, promoting a sense of belonging and personal worth to the individual; and instrumental, practical aid can be accessed, for example, by giving tips on help-seeking or advice on coping with cravings [77].

Recently, there has been increased demand for AOD treatment, particularly among young cannabis users and socially-integrated drug users. It has been suggested that these people may feel uncomfortable with ‘traditional’ treatment centres [97], but concern raised about the inability of AOD treatment services to meet this increased demand even if people willingly accessed these services [98]. The use of Web 2.0 technologies has the potential to offer support that is accessible at any time and in locations best suited to the AOD user, capitalizing on opportunistic treatment seeking, without significantly impacting on workloads and capacity of available treatment services. Furthermore, such technologies have the capacity to preserve anonymity and eliminate stigmatization in a way that traditional services and support groups cannot.

It has also been shown that Internet use transcends socioeconomic divisions, as do social networking activities, with AOD users reporting equivalent rates of Internet access and usage as those who do not use substances [99]. This finding suggests AOD users are just as familiar with such technologies as information- and help-seekers with other conditions, and thus, potentially, no less likely to utilise them.

Concerns

Despite the potential advantages, some concerns exist about the growing use of Web 1.0 and 2.0 technologies in healthcare. One particular concern has been the role the Internet has played in facilitating lay expertise [100,101], with issues about the reliability of the source, the information, and the user’s interpretation of this information [102]. Critics of e-health as a concept have argued that information (in and of itself) does not equate to knowledge or empowerment [102]. In numerous online forums, laypeople distribute available scientific medical knowledge, but they also gather and combine illness experiences to produce interpretations of-and remedies for-their conditions that are not necessarily evidence-based [103]. These recommendations can sometimes contradict those offered by experts and the evidence, with concerns that, as use and comfort with Web 2.0 becomes more widespread, this will occur more frequently than at present [101,104]. In contrast to previous decades, where illness, particularly AOD uses, has been an intensely private experience, the Internet and Web 2.0 technologies are bringing about changes in this regard. We are seeing a relative decline in professional authority and increased demands from laypeople for medicalization (defining a problem in medical terms) or demedicalization of behavioural conditions such as AOD use problems [105,106]. Particularly for people who are reluctant or unable to access traditional treatments and health professionals within these settings, the Internet (Google, online forums, blogs) are often consulted for advice and treatment strategies, with little in the way of evidence to support the advice and diagnoses provided. Advice can serve to heighten demands for treatment and anxiety around symptoms, increasing the demand for, potentially, unnecessarily and costly diagnostic procedures, placing additional pressures on services that are already operating at capacity. An added concern is that treatments, especially pharmacotherapy, is prescribed in an attempt to contain costs and other resources [80]. The converse could also result, in the case of addictions, whereby use could be normalized, decreasing motivation to change and for treatment. Debates about these issues are likely to have a significant impact on help-care reform, particularly in countries such as the USA [80]. Proponents of the use of Web 2.0 and associated technologies need to develop strategies to work with this phenomenon.

There are also obvious quality of information, confidentiality and technological safety concerns of using social networking sites for health purposes [107]. For instance, recent attempts to explore these variables among diabetes-specific social networking sites found much variability in the quality and technological safety of the most popular of these sites [108]. This is a concern, considering the high volume of use these sites attract and highlights an area in need of further development and improvement. Similarly, a qualitative evaluation of the content of communication in 15 Facebook communities dedicated to diabetes management support found users employed the site to share personal clinical information, to request disease-specific guidance and feedback, and to receive emotional support. However, promotional activity and personal data collection presented a concern [109]. Finally, Prochaska et al. [110] concluded that although current attempts to establish “quit smoking” Twitter accounts had been inconsistent and unsustainable, but that “Twitter and other social networking platforms offer tremendous and yet unrealised potential in engaging users who want to quit smoking” .

Conclusion

Sociologists are only just beginning to explore the impact and meaning of this phenomenon and what it means for health and illness.

Clinicians, researchers, and sociologists are only just beginning to understand and explore the impact of Web 2.0 applications, as a social influence tool, to a person’s experience of chronic health problems. The ability of online social networks to offer round-the-clock access to vast numbers of people overcomes many of the problems involved with offline support (e.g., time, availability and geographical constraints). There are, however, some concerns raised regarding what impact this kind of lay-expertise may have on health at an individual and systemic level. Nevertheless, such interactions could alter motivation, assist in buffering stressors and enhancing coping skills [111]. In the education sector, the use of Web 2.0 technologies that expand interactivity and collaborative content sharing, such as Facebook, are being used to engage and motivate students to become more active learners [112-115]. The health sector is also beginning to explore the potential of these applications for improved health outcomes [59], with studies indicating that Facebook is already frequently used by patients, carers and healthcare professionals to share their experiences with one another [116].

Although in its infancy, there is growing evidence to suggest that social media can provide an engaging way of delivering interventions aimed at behavioural, cognitive and emotional modification [117]. The combination of personalization, interactivity, and engagement offered by Web 2.0 technologies suggests there is potential for social media to be used for more than merely socialising. The major role played by social factors in initiation, maintenance and escalation of AOD use presents an opportunity for this potential to be realised. Despite this, with the exception of online forums which remain unevaluated, there have only been a few cases of Web 2.0 applications being used in the treatment of AOD use. Those that do exist have focused on smoking cessation [118-120]. For instance, an automated, Internet-based smoking cessation program was developed, and emulated a personal counselling experience using a variety of information materials and videos that were targeted at the individual user. After three months of online support, the cessation rate was 24% in the group that had online support, compared to 8% for the waitlist control [121].

Like any new tool, social networking cannot be considered a “silver bullet” to the challenges and complexity of an issue such as AOD use. Furthermore, the incorporation of such technology into current practice is not as simple as creating a website or a Facebook page or generating an online version of a treatment manual. There are both benefits and risks associated with the use of social media, which need to be explored. Significantly more controlled research is required, as this area represents an exciting new opportunity in the treatment of addiction.

References

1. IWS (2011) Internet world statistics: Usage and population statistics.
2. ABS (2011) Household use of information technology. Australian Bureau of Statistics.
3. ITU (2010) United States of America: Internet usage and broadband usage report. Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics
4. Fox S (2011) Health Topics. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
5. Fox S (2011) Health Topics: 80% of users look for health information online. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
6. Richardson CR, Buis LR, Janney AW, Goodrich DE, Sen A, et al. (2010) An online community improves adherence in an internet-mediated walking program. Part 1: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 12: e71.
7. Bender JL, Jimenez-Marroquin MC, Jadad AR (2011) Seeking support on facebook: A content analysis of breast cancer groups. J Med Internet Res 13: e16.
8. Australian Facebook Statistics.
9. Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Lewin TJ, Carr VJ (2009) Computer-based psychological treatment for comorbid depression and problematic alcohol and/or cannabis use: a randomized controlled trial of clinical efficacy. Addiction 104: 378-388.
10. Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Kelly B, Lewin TJ (2011) Clinician-assisted computerised versus therapist-delivered treatment for depressive and addictive disorders: a randomised controlled trial. Med J Aust 195: S44-S50.
11. Andersson G, Cuijpers P (2009) Internet-based and other computerized psychological treatments for adult depression: a meta-analysis. Cogn Behav Ther 38: 196-205.
12. Kelman H (1958) Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. J Conflict Resolut 1: 51-60.
13. Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theor. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
14. Epstein JA, Griffin KW, Botvin GJ (2008) A social influence model of alcohol use for inner-city adolescents: Family drinking, perceived drinking norms and perceived social benefits of drinking. J Stud Alcohol 69: 397-405.
15. Rende R, Slomkowski C, Lloyd-Richardson E, Niaura R (2005) Sibling effects on substance use in adolescence: Social contagion and genetic relatedness. J Fam Psychol 19: 611-618.
16. Ellickson PL, Hays RD (1991) Antecedents of drinking among young adolescents with different alcohol use histories. J Stud Alcohol 52: 398-408.
17. Colder CR and Chassin L (1999), The psychosocial characteristics of alcohol users versus problem users: Data from a study of adolescents at risk. Dev Psychopathol 11: 321-348.
18. Griffin KW, Botvin GJ, Epstein JA, Doyle MM, Diaz T (2000) Psychosocial and behavioral factors in early adolescence as predictors of heavy drinking among high school seniors. J Stud Alcohol 61: 603-606.
19. Beal AC, Ausiello J, Perrin JM (2001) Social influences on health-risk behaviors among minority middle school students. J Adolesc Health 28: 474-480.
20. Sieving RE, Perry CL, Williams CL (2000) Do friendships change behaviors, or do behaviors change friendships? Examining paths of influence in young adolescents' alcohol use. J Adolesc Health 26: 27-35.
21. Ennett ST, Bauman KE (1991) Mediators in the relationship between parental and peer characteristics and beer drinking by early adolescents. J Appl Psychol 21: 1699-1711.
22. Graham JW, Marks G, Hansen WB (1991) Social influence processes affecting adolescent substance use. J Appl Psychol 76: 291-298.
23. Kandel DB, Andrews K (1987) Processes of adolescent socialization by parents and by peers. Int J Addict 22: 319-342.
24. Ouellette JA, Gerrard M, Gibbons, Frederick GX, Monica RB (1999) Parents, peers, and prototypes: Antecedents of adolescent alcohol expectancies, alcohol consumption, and alcohol-related life problems in rural youth. Psychol Addict Behav 13: 183-197.
25. Aarons GA, Goldman MS, Greenbaum PE, Coovert MD (2003) Alcohol expectancies: Integrating cognitive science and psychometric approaches. Addict Behav 28: 947-961.
26. Simons-Morton B, Haynie DL, Crump AD, Saylor KE, Eitel P, et al. (1999) Expectancies and other psychosocial factors associated with alcohol use among early adolescent boys and girls. Addict Behav 24: 229-238.
27. Christiansen BA, Smith GT, Roehling PV, Goldman MS (1989) Using alcohol expectancies to predict adolescent drinking behavior after one year. J Consult Clin Psychol 57: 93-99.
28. Prinstein MJ, Wang SS (2005) False consensus and adolescent peer contagion: examining discrepancies between perceptions and actual reported levels of friends’ deviant and health risk behaviors. J Abnorm Child Psychol 33: 293-306.
29. Botvin GJ, Botvin EM, Baker E, Dusenbury L, Goldberg CJ (1992) The false consensus effect: predicting adolescents' tobacco use from normative expectations. Psychol Rep 70: 171-178.
30. Komro KA, Perry CL, Veblen-Mortenson S, Williams CL (1994) Peer participation in Project Northland: A community-wide alcohol use prevention project. J Sch Health 64: 318-322.
31. Oetting E, Lynch R, Sloboda Z, Bukoski WJ (2006) Peers and the Prevention of Adolescent Drug Use in Handbook of Drug Abuse Prevention, Springer 101-127.
32. Cuijpers P (2002) Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs. A systematic review. Addict Behav 27: 1009-1023.
33. Cuijpers P (2003) Three decades of drug prevention research. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy 10: 7-20.
34. Perry CL, Kelder SH (1992) Models for effective prevention. J Adolesc Health 13: 355-363.
35. Botvin GJ, Kantor LW (2000) Preventing alcohol and tobacco use through life skills training. Alcohol Res Health 24: 250-257.
36. Gorman DM, Conde E, Huber JC (2007) The creation of evidence in ‘evidence-based’ drug prevention: a critique of the strengthening families program plus life skills training evaluation. Drug Alcohol Rev 26: 585-593.
37. Hansen WB, Graham JW (1991) Preventing alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use among adolescents: peer pressure resistance training versus establishing conservative norms. Prev Med 20: 414-430.
38. De Leon G, Wexler H (2009) The therapeutic community for addictions: An evolving knowledge base. Journal of Drug Issues 39: 167-177.
39. Bandura A, Bergin AE, Garfield SL (1971) Psychotherapy based upon modeling principles, in Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change.
40. Rachman S (1972) Clinical applications of observational learning, imitation, and modeling. Behavior Therapy 3: 379-397.
41. Meyers RJ, Miller WR, Smith JE, Tonigan JS (2002) A randomized trial of two methods for engaging treatment-refusing drug users through concerned significant others. J Consult Clin Psychol 70: 1182-1185.
42. Apodaca TR, Longabaugh R (2009) Mechanisms of change in motivational interviewing: A review and preliminary evaluation of the evidence. Addiction 104: 705-715.
43. Hof R (2006) Web 2.0 has corporate America spinning. Business Week.
44. O'Reilly T (2007) What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies 1: 17.
45. Vossen G, Hagemann S (2007) Unleashing web 2.0: from concepts to creativity. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
46. (2012) Web 2.0. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
47. Van De Belt TH, Engelen LJ, Berben SA, Schoonhoven L (2010) Definition of Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0: A systematic review. J Med Internet Res 12: e18.
48. Lenhart A (2010) Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults. Pew Internet and American Life Project.
49. Lewis K, Kaufman J, Christakis N (2008) The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. J Comput Mediat Commun 14: 79-100.
50. Kontos EZ, Emmons KM, Puleo E, Viswanath K (2010) Communication inequalities and public health implications of adult social networking site use in the United States. J Health Commun 15: 216-235.
51. Fogg BJ (2008) Mass interpersonal persuasion: An early view of a new phenomenon, in Persuasive Technology: Third International Conference, Persuasive Springer 22-34.
52. (2011) Sensis® Social Media Report, What Australian people and businesses are doing with social media. Sensis: Sydney.
53. Rosenquist JN, Fowler JH, Christakis NA (2011) Social network determinants of depression. Mol Psychiatry 16: 273-281.
54. Lefebvre RC (2007) The new technology: The consumer as participant rather than target audience. Soc Mar Q 13: 31-42.
55. Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ (2011) Using Web 2.0 technologies to enhance evidence-based medical information. J Health Commun 16: 45-58.
56. van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CH, Taal E, Seydel ER, van de Laar MA (2009) Participation in online patient support groups endorses patients' empowerment. Patient Educ Couns 74: 61-69.
57. Mo PK, Coulson NS (2010) Empowering processes in online support groups among people living with HIV/AIDS: A comparative analysis of 'lurkers' and 'posters'. Comput Human Behav 26: 1183-1193.
58. Newman MW (2011) It's not that I don't have problems, I'm just not putting them on Facebook:: Challenges and opportunities in using online social networks for health. ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work.
59. Griffiths KM, Calear AL, Banfield M (2009) Systematic review on internet support groups (ISGs) and depression: Do ISGs reduce depressive symptoms? J Med Internet Res 11: e40.
60. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C (2007) The benefits of facebook ‘friends’: social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J Comput Mediat Commun 12: 1143-1168.
61. Valenzuela S, Park N, Kee KF (2009) Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. J Comput Mediat Commun 14: 875-901.
62. Steele R (2011) Social media, mobile devices and sensors: Categorizing new techniques for health communication. Fifth International Conference on Sensing Technology 187-192.
63. Webb TL, Joseph J, Yardley L, Michie S (2010) Using the Internet to promote health behavior change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res 12: e4.
64. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS (2007) Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull 133: 673-693.
65. Chatterjee S, Price A (2009) Healthy living with persuasive technologies: framework, issues and challenges. J Am Med Inform Assoc 16: 171-178.
66. Linke S, Murray E, Butler C, Wallace P (2007) Internet-based interactive health intervention for the promotion of sensible drinking: patterns of use and potential impact on members of the general public. J Med Internet Res 9: e10.
67. Christensen H, Mackinnon A (2006 ) The law of attrition revisited. J Med Internet Res 8: e20.
68. Eysenbach G (2005) The law of attrition. J Med Internet Res 7: e11.
69. Eysenbach G (2008) eHealth (web-based behavior change programs) in the Toronto Star Gunther Eysenbach's Random Research Rants.
70. Strasburger VC, BJ Wilson, Jordan AB (2002) Children, Adolescents and the Media. Sage Publications.
71. Moreno MA, Parks MR, Zimmerman FJ, Brito TE, Christakis DA (2009) Display of health risk behaviors on MySpace by adolescents: prevalence and associations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 163: 27-34.
72. Moreno MA, Briner LR, Williams A, Walker L, Christakis DA (2009) Real use or ‘real cool’: adolescents speak out about displayed alcohol references on social networking websites. J Adolesc Health 45: 420-422.
73. Foxcroft DR, Tsertsvadze A (2012) Universal school-based prevention programs for alcohol misuse in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
74. Newton NC, Vogl LE, Teesson M, Andrews G (2009) CLIMATE Schools: alcohol module: cross-validation of a school-based prevention programme for alcohol misuse. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 43: 201-207.
75. Newton NC, Andrews G, Teesson M, Vogl LE (2009) Delivering prevention for alcohol and cannabis using the Internet: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Prev Med 48: 579-584.
76. Newton NC, Teesson M, Vogl LE, Andrews G (2010) Internet-based prevention for alcohol and cannabis use: final results of the Climate Schools course. Addiction 105: 749-759.
77. Dahl S (2006) Digital Marketing: Peer support via the internet: What kind of online support is sought by individuals with chronic medical conditions? Journal of Medical Marketing 6: 268-275.
78. Denegri-Knott J (2006) Consumers behaving badly: deviation or innovation? Power struggles on the web. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5: 82-94.
79. Joosten EA, DeFuentes-Merillas L, de Weert GH, Sensky T, van der Staak CP, et al. (2008) Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom 77: 219-226.
80. Conrad P, Barker KK (2010) The social construction of illness: key insights and policy implications J Health Soc Behav 51: S67-S79.
81. Berkman LF (1995) The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosom Med 57: 245-254.
82. Christakis NA, Allison PD (2006) Mortality after the hospitalization of a spouse. N Engl J Med 354: 719-730.
83. Cohen S, D Janicki-Deverts (2009) Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks? Perspect Psychol Sci 4: 375-378.
84. Dahl S (2006) Digital marketing: peer support via the internet: what kind of online support is sought by individuals with chronic medical conditions? Journal of Medical Marketing: Device, Diagnostic and Pharmaceutical Marketing 6: 268-275.
85. Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J (2005) A multilevel analysis of sociability, usability, and community dynamics in an online health community. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 12: 201-232.
86. Preece J (2000) Online Communities - Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. John Wiley & Sons
87. Frost JH, Massagli MP (2008) Social uses of personal health information within PatientsLikeMe, an online patient community: What can happen when patients have access to one another's data. J Med Internet Res 10: e15.
88. Brownstein CA, Brownstein JS, Williams DS 3rd, Wicks P, Heywood JA (2009) The power of social networking in medicine. Nat Biotechnol 27: 888-890.
89. Westmaas JL, Bontemps-Jones J, Bauer JE (2010) Social support in smoking cessation: reconciling theory and evidence. Nicotine Tob Res 12: 695-707.
90. Young JD (1996) The effect of self-regulated learning strategies on performance in learner controlled computer-based instruction. Educ Technol Res Dev 44: 17-27.
91. Sundar SS (2007) Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In: Handbook of Internet Psychology. Joinson AN, et al., (Eds.), Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK 89-104.
92. Mangold WG, Faulds DJ (2009) Social media: The New Hybrid Element of the Promotion Mix. Bus Horiz 52: 357-365.
93. Tremayne M, Dunwoody S (2001) Interactivity, information processing, and learning on the World Wide Web. Sci Commun 23: 111-134.
94. Hickie IB, Davenport TA, Scott EM, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Naismith SL, et al. (2001) Unmet need for recognition of common mental disorders in Australian general practice. Med J Aust 175: S18-S24.
95. Myers BJ, Pasche S, Adam M (2010) Correlates of substance abuse treatment completion among disadvantaged communities in Cape Town, South Africa. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 5: 3.
96. Burgess PM, Pirkis JE, Slade TN, Johnston AK, Meadows GN (2009) Service use for mental health problems: findings from the 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 43: 615-623.
97. EMCDDA (2009) Internet-based drug treatment interventions: Best practice and applications in EU Member States, EMCDDA Insights No 10, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon.
98. Kay-Lambkin FJ, Baker AL, Lewin TJ (2004) The 'co-morbidity roundabout': a framework to guide assessment and intervention strategies and engineer change among people with co-morbid problems. Drug Alcohol Rev 23: 407-423.
99. Cunningham JA, Selby PL, Kypri K, Humphreys KN (2006) Access to the Internet among drinkers, smokers and illicit drug users: is it a barrier to the provision of interventions on the World Wide Web? Med Inform Internet Med 31: 53-58.
100. Nettleton S, Bzurrows R, O’Malley L (2005) The mundane realities of the everyday lay use of the internet for health, and their consequences for media convergence. Sociol Health Illn 27: 972-992.
101. Hardey M (1999) Doctor in the house: the Internet as source of lay health knowledge and the challenge to expertise. Sociol Health Illn 21: 820-835.
102. Segal JZ (2009) Internet health and the 21st- Century patient: A rhetorical view. Written Communication 26: 351-369.
103. Barker KK, Galardi TR (2011) Dead by 50: Lay expertise and breast cancer screening. Soc Sci Med 72: 1351-1358.
104. Henwood F, Wyatt S, Hart A, Smith J (2003) Ignorance is bliss sometimes: constraints on the emergence of the ’informed patient’ in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociol Health Illn 25: 589-607.
105. Conrad P, C Stults (2010) Internet and the Illness Experience, in The Handbook of Medical Sociology, Vanderbilt University Press: Nashville, TN. 179-91.
106. Barker KK (2008) Electronic support groups, patient-consumers, and medicalization: the case of contested illness. J Health Soc Behav 49: 20-36.
107. Leithner A, Maurer-Ertl W, Glehr M, Friesenbichler J, Leithner K, et al. (2010) Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information? J Am Med Inform Assoc 17: 373-374.
108. Weitzman ER, Cole E, Kaci L, Mandl KD (2011) Social but safe? Quality and safety of diabetes-related online social networks. J Am Med Inform Assoc 18: 292-297.
109. Greene JA, Choudhry NK, Kilabuk E, Shrank WH (2011) Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with facebook. J Gen Intern Med 26: 287-292.
110. Prochaska JJ, Pechmann C, Kim R, Leonhardt JM (2012) Twitter=quitter? An analysis of Twitter quit smoking social networks. Tob Control 21: 447-449.
111. Cobb NK, Graham AL, Byron MJ, Niaura RS, Abrams DB, et al. (2011) Online Social Networks and Smoking Cessation: A Scientific Research Agenda. J Med Internet Res 13: e119.
112. Hughes A (2009) Higher education in a Web 2.0 world. JISC Report: United Kingdom
113. Ebner M, Lienhardt C, Rohs M, Meyer I (2010) Microblogs in higher education - a chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Comput Educ 55: 92-100.
114. Grosseck G, Holotescu C (2009) Can we use Twitter for educational activities? 4th International Scientific Conference: eLSE. Bucharest, Romania.
115. Schroeder A, Minocha S, Schneider C (2010) The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26: 159-174.
116. Farmer AD, Bruckner Holt CE, Cook MJ, Hearing SD (2009) Social networking sites: a novel portal for communication. Postgrad Med J 85: 455-459.
117. Dahl S (2010) Using Social Media for Social Good - A Conceptual Overview. Social Science Research Network.
118. Selby P, Trevor van Mierlo, Voci SC, Parent D, Cunningham JA (2010) Online social and professional support for smokers trying to quit: An exploration of first time posts from 2562 members. J Med Internet Res 12: e34.
119. Burri M, Baujard V, Etter JF (2006) A qualitative analysis of an internet discussion forum for recent ex-smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 8: S13-S19.
120. Cobb NK, Graham AL, Abrams DB (2010) Social network structure of a large online community for smoking cessation. Am J Public Health 100: 1282-1289.
121. Swartz LH, Noell JW, Schroeder SW, Ary DV (2006) A randomised control study of a fully automated internet based smoking cessation programme. Tob Control 15: 7-12.