Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38722680›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2024

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

Paul Marshall, Millissa Booth, Matthew Coole, Lauren Fothergill, Zoe Glossop, Jade Haines, Andrew Harding, Rose Johnston, Steven Jones, Christopher Lodge and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Social media use and positive aspects of caregiving: a longitudinal test of the social compensation hypothesis.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. What Youth Write About and Seek in an Anonymized Online Peer Support Forum: Insights from India.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

22 authors.

Paul MarshallSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3913-3359
Millissa BoothSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-1900-2265
Matthew CooleSchool of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9279-931X
Lauren FothergillDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2144-7528
Zoe GlossopSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6151-4860
Jade HainesIT Corporate Services, Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Berkshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0005-4321-4775
Andrew HardingDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7240-2311
Rose JohnstonSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6863-2624
Steven JonesSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8801-5113
Christopher LodgeSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1115-5553
Karen MachinSurvivor Research Network, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0374-4238
Rachel MeacockDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8933-5058
Kristi NielsonDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0006-0271-6223
Jo-Anne PuddephattDepartment of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3441-4052
Tamara RakicSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8591-923X
Paul RaysonSchool of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1257-2191
Heather RobinsonSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3566-2253
Jo Rycroft-MaloneFaculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3858-5625
Nick ShryaneSocial Statistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7963-4601
Zoe SwithenbankDivision of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3915-1618
Sara WiseIT Corporate Services, Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Berkshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0001-7778-7409
Fiona LobbanSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6594-4350

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline forums are widely used for mental health peer support. However, evidence of their safety and effectiveness is mixed. Further research focused on articulating the contexts in which positive and negative impacts emerge from forum use is required to inform innovations in implementation.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop a realist program theory to explain the impacts of online mental health peer support forums on users.

methodsWe conducted a realist synthesis of literature published between 2019 and 2023 and 18 stakeholder interviews with forum staff.

resultsSynthesis of 102 evidence sources and 18 interviews produced an overarching program theory comprising 22 context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Findings indicate that users' perceptions of psychological safety and the personal relevance of forum content are foundational to ongoing engagement. Safe and active forums that provide convenient access to information and advice can lead to improvements in mental health self-efficacy. Within the context of welcoming and nonjudgmental communities, users may benefit from the opportunity to explore personal difficulties with peers, experience reduced isolation and normalization of mental health experiences, and engage in mutual encouragement. The program theory highlights the vital role of moderators in creating facilitative online spaces, stimulating community engagement, and limiting access to distressing content. A key challenge for organizations that host mental health forums lies in balancing forum openness and anonymity with the need to enforce rules, such as restrictions on what users can discuss, to promote community safety.

conclusionsThis is the first realist synthesis of online mental health peer support forums. The novel program theory highlights how successful implementation depends on establishing protocols for enhancing safety and strategies for maintaining user engagement to promote forum sustainability.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022352528; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=352528.

Indexed as

Peer GroupHumansMental DisordersMental Health ServicesOnline Social NetworkingSocial Supportdigital mental healthmoderationpeer-to-peer supportsocial networkingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38722680
PMCPMC11117133

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.