ArticleBMJ open2023
Improving Peer Online Forums (iPOF): protocol for a realist evaluation of peer online mental health forums to inform practice and policy.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design Guidelines for Online Health Forums: User-Centered Design Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Insights and Recommendations From Moderators and Community Members for Keeping Online Peer Support Safe: Thematic Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluating Peer Online Forums to Support Health: Ethical and Practical Challenges.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Online Mental Health Forum Use for People from Ethnic Minority Backgrounds in the United Kingdom: A Mixed Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Impacts of Using Peer Online Forums in Mental Health: Realist Evaluation Using Mixed Methods.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Understanding the Needs of Moderators in Online Mental Health Forums: Realist Synthesis and Recommendations for Support.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Understanding Safety in Online Mental Health Forums: Realist Evaluation.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Understanding the Impacts of Online Mental Health Peer Support Forums: Realist Synthesis.JMIR mental health · 2024Article
- Who uses mental health support forums, and why? Triangulating findings from surveys, interviews, and forum posts.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeer online mental health forums are commonly used and offer accessible support. Positive and negative impacts have been reported by forum members and moderators, but it is unclear why these impacts occur, for whom and in which forums. This multiple method realist study explores underlying mechanisms to understand how forums work for different people. The findings will inform codesign of best practice guidance and policy tools to enhance the uptake and effectiveness of peer online mental health forums. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In workstream 1, we will conduct a realist synthesis, based on existing literature and interviews with approximately 20 stakeholders, to generate initial programme theories about the impacts of forums on members and moderators and mechanisms driving these. Initial theories that are relevant for forum design and implementation will be prioritised for testing in workstream 2.Workstream 2 is a multiple case study design with mixed methods with several online mental health forums differing in contextual features. Quantitative surveys of forum members, qualitative interviews and Corpus-based Discourse Analysis and Natural Language Processing of forum posts will be used to test and refine programme theories. Final programme theories will be developed through novel triangulation of the data.Workstream 3 will run alongside workstreams 1 and 2. Key stakeholders from participating forums, including members and moderators, will be recruited to a Codesign group. They will inform the study design and materials, refine and prioritise theories, and codesign best policy and practice guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by Solihull Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 314029). Findings will be reported in accordance with RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) guidelines, published as open access and shared widely, along with codesigned tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 62469166; the protocol for the realist synthesis in workstream one is prospectively registered at PROSPERO CRD42022352528.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.