Meeting the Unmet Needs of Individuals With Mental Disorders: Scoping Review on Peer-to-Peer Web-Based Interactions

Abstract

Background An increasing number of online support groups are providing advice and information on topics related to mental health. Objective This study aimed to investigate the needs that internet users meet through peer-to-peer interactions. Methods A search of 4 databases was performed until August 15, 2022. Qualitative or mixed methods (ie, qualitative and quantitative) studies investigating interactions among internet users with mental disorders were included. The φ coefficient was used and machine learning techniques were applied to investigate the associations between the type of mental disorders and web-based interactions linked to seeking help or support. Results Of the 13,098 identified records, 44 studies (analyzed in 54 study-disorder pairs) that assessed 82,091 users and 293,103 posts were included. The most frequent interactions were noted for people with eating disorders (14/54, 26%), depression (12/54, 22%), and psychoactive substance use disorders (9/54, 17%). We grouped interactions between users into 42 codes, with the empathy or compassion code being the most common (41/54, 76%). The most frequently coexisting codes were request for information and network (35 times; φ=0.5; P<.001). The algorithms that provided the best accuracy in classifying disorders by interactions were decision trees (44/54, 81%) and logistic regression (40/54, 74%). The included studies were of moderate quality. Conclusions People with mental disorders mostly use the internet to seek support, find answers to their questions, and chat. The results of this analysis should be interpreted as a proof of concept. More data on web-based interactions among these people might help apply machine learning methods to develop a tool that might facilitate screening or even support mental health assessment.

Needs Expressed in Peer-to-Peer Web-Based Interactions Among People With Depression and Anxiety Disorders Hospitalized in a Mental Health Facility: Mixed Methods Study

“…Qualitative content analysis was used to understand experiences presented in the posts, while quantitative analysis was used to provide numerical descriptions of the data and explore relationships between needs and trends. We coded the interactions between forum users that revealed their needs related to hospitalization in psychiatric units using a codebook developed in our previous study [ 66 ]. Coding quality was ensured by training all the coders.…”

Digital altruism: the motivators for, effects of and support received when moderating mental health online

“…Moderators often only receive basic training from the organisation for whom they volunteer and are not bound to engage in any form of clinical supervision. Evidence has suggested that unmoderated communities may experience negative effects such as distortion of information and negative social interactions (Kraut and Resnick, 2012;Young, 2013;Storman et al, 2022). Previous research has suggested that OMHC users perceive the OMHC to give them a sense of community, allowing them to communicate with like-minded individuals (Rathbone et al, 2020).…”

Understanding the Impacts of Online Mental Health Peer Support Forums: Realist Synthesis

“…Previous reviews have identified and described mental health forum user experiences. For example, it is clear that online forum-based interventions for mental health are feasible and viewed as acceptable by most users and meet some users' needs for informational and social support [23][24][25]. However, there have been recent calls for mechanistic research to better understand the processes that underpin the effects of online forums to inform innovations in forum design and implementation [26].…”

“…Our decision to search from 2019 onward was informed by a recent comprehensive review of digital health interventions that identified both a shift in the online context of health service delivery as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and a notable increase in relevant literature in the same year [29]. It is also likely that pre-2019 articles are captured in related systematic reviews [23,24]. The scope of this synthesis was also informed by engagement with a public and patient involvement group comprising forum staff and users.…”