Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33818392›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Moderated Online Social Therapy for Young People With Active Suicidal Ideation: Qualitative Study.

Eleanor Bailey, Jo Robinson, Mario Alvarez-Jimenez, Maja Nedeljkovic, Lee Valentine, Sarah Bendall, Simon D'Alfonso, Tamsyn Gilbertson, Ben McKechnie, Simon Rice

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Meeting Users Where They Are: User-centered Design of an Automated Text Messaging Tool to Support the Mental Health of Young Adults.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eleanor BaileyOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4918-1618
Jo RobinsonOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5652-918X
Mario Alvarez-JimenezOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3535-9086
Maja NedeljkovicSwinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0963-0335
Lee ValentineOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7481-6537
Sarah BendallOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1486-6190
Simon D'AlfonsoOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7407-8730
Tamsyn GilbertsonOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0996-8002
Ben McKechnieOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6980-6115
Simon RiceOrygen, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4045-8553
The University of Melbourne · AUOrygen · AUSwinburne University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based interventions are a promising approach to support youth at risk of suicide, and those incorporating peer-to-peer social networking may have the added potential to target interpersonal states of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness. Owing to feasibility and safety concerns, including fear of contagion, this had not been tested until recently. In 2018, we conducted a pilot evaluation to test the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of a Moderated Online Social Therapy intervention, called Affinity, with a sample of young people with active suicidal ideation.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to report qualitative data collected from study participants regarding their experience of the web-based social network and the consequent safety features.

methodsAffinity is a closed website incorporating 3 key components: therapeutic content delivered via comics, peer-to-peer social networking, and moderation by peers and clinicians. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 young people who participated in the pilot study after 8 weeks of exposure to the intervention. Interview data from 2 young people who did not use Affinity were excluded from the analysis. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis, with the frequency of responses characterized using the consensual qualitative research method. The results are reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.

resultsA total of 4 overarching themes were identified: a safe and supportive environment, the importance of mutual experiences, difficulty engaging and connecting, and the pros and cons of banning discussions about suicide. Interestingly, although Affinity was perceived to be safe and free of judgment, concerns about negative evaluation and triggering others were significant barriers to posting on the social network. Participants generally supported the banning of conversations about suicide, although for some this was perceived to reinforce stigma or was associated with frustration and distress.

conclusionsThe results not only support the safety and potential therapeutic benefit of the social networking aspect of Affinity but also highlight several implementation challenges. There is a need to carefully balance the need for stringent safety and design features while ensuring that the potential for therapeutic benefit is maximized.

Indexed as

Suicidal IdeationSuicide PreventionAdolescentHumansPilot ProjectsQualitative ResearchSocial Networkinginternet-based interventionsocial mediasuicideyouth

Identifiers

PMID33818392
PMCPMC8056298
OpenAlexW3126388211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.