Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29241435›Full record

SynthesisPsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2018

Potential Benefits of Incorporating Peer-to-Peer Interactions Into Digital Interventions for Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Bruno Biagianti, Sophia H Quraishi, Danielle A Schlosser

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Loneliness in schizophrenia: Just loneliness.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bruno BiagiantiThe authors are with the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Biagianti is also with Posit Science Corporation, San Francisco. Dr. Schlosser is also with Verily Life Sciences LLC, Mountain View, California.
Sophia H QuraishiThe authors are with the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Biagianti is also with Posit Science Corporation, San Francisco. Dr. Schlosser is also with Verily Life Sciences LLC, Mountain View, California.
Danielle A SchlosserThe authors are with the Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Biagianti is also with Posit Science Corporation, San Francisco. Dr. Schlosser is also with Verily Life Sciences LLC, Mountain View, California.

Funding

CLINICAL SERVICES RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAMT32MH018261 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Kaja Zabrina LeWinn, Rachel L. Loewy · 1985 to 2026
$7.0M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH018261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePeer-to-peer interactions and support groups mitigate experiences of social isolation and loneliness often reported by individuals with psychotic disorders. Online peer-to-peer communication can promote broader use of this form of social support. Peer-to-peer interactions occur naturally on social media platforms, but they can negatively affect mental health. Recent digital interventions for persons with psychotic disorders have harnessed the principles of social media to incorporate peer-to-peer communication. This review examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of recent digital interventions in order to identify strategies to maximize benefits of online peer-to-peer communication for persons with psychotic disorders.

methodsAn electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted in February 2017 and yielded a total of 1,015 results. Eight publications that reported data from six independent trials and five interventions were reviewed.

resultsThe technology supporting peer-to-peer communication varied greatly across studies, from online forums to embedded social networking. When peer-to-peer interactions were moderated by facilitators, retention, engagement, acceptability, and efficacy were higher than for interventions with no facilitators. Individuals with psychotic disorders were actively engaged with moderated peer-to-peer communication and showed improvements in perceived social support. Studies involving service users in intervention design showed higher rates of acceptability.

conclusionsIndividuals with psychotic disorders value and benefit from digital interventions that include moderated peer-to-peer interactions. Incorporating peer-to-peer communication into digital interventions for this population may increase compliance with other evidence-based therapies by producing more acceptable and engaging online environments.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsPeer GroupSocial MediaHumansPsychotherapyPsychotic DisordersTelemedicinedigital healthPsychosissocial media

Identifiers

PMID29241435
PMCPMC5988432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.