Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36264621›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2022

Use of an Online Forum for Relatives of People With Psychosis and Bipolar Disorder: Mixed Methods Study.

Steven Jones, Dimitrinka Atanasova, Susanna Dodd, Susan Flowers, Anna Rosala-Hallas, Heather Robinson, Elena Semino, Fiona Lobban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Steven JonesSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8801-5113
Dimitrinka AtanasovaDisTex - Discourse and Text Research Group, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3474-8909
Susanna DoddDepartment of Biostatistics, Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2851-3337
Susan FlowersSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9302-3492
Anna Rosala-HallasDepartment of Biostatistics, Clinical Trials Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8012-9995
Heather RobinsonSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3566-2253
Elena SeminoDepartment of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3421-2963
Fiona LobbanSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6594-4350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRelatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder experience high levels of distress but are typically not offered the support they need. Online peer forums may offer a solution, but knowledge about who uses them, how, and why is limited. This study reported on online forum use during the Relatives Education and Coping Toolkit (REACT) trial.

objectiveWe aimed to report who used the forum and why; how sociodemographic factors are associated with participation; the relationship among frequency, type of use, and outcomes; and how the forum was used.

methodsThe relationships between key sociodemographic characteristics, levels of forum use, and distress were statistically analyzed. We used thematic and semantic analyses to understand the reasons for relatives joining the forum and the key topics initiated by them. We also used the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language Semantic Analysis System to compare how relatives and REACT supporters (moderators) used the forum.

resultsA total of 348 participants with full forum use data from REACT were included in this study. The forum was accessed by 59.4% (207/348) of the relatives across the entire age range, with no significant associations between sociodemographic factors and forum participation, or between level or type of use and relatives' distress levels. Relatives joined the forum primarily to find people in similar circumstances, express concerns, and talk about stressful events. Relatives were most concerned about recent events, negative emotions linked to caring, experiences of conflict or threat, and concerns about suicide. These posts underscored both the challenges the relatives were facing and the fact that they felt safe sharing them in this context.

conclusionsAlthough only a proportion of REACT participants engaged actively with its forum, they were widely distributed across age and other sociodemographic groupings. Relatives used the forum for information, support, and guidance and to offer detailed information about their experiences. The topics raised highlighted the burden carried by relatives and the potential value of easy-access, moderated, peer-supported forums in helping relatives to manage the challenges they faced.

Indexed as

bipolar disordercarerdigital healthforummental healthonlinepsychosisREACTrelativeRelatives Education and Coping Toolkittrial

Identifiers

PMID36264621
PMCPMC9634518

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.