ArticlePsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2025
Experiences With Online Mutual Support Groups for Problematic Drinking.
Article in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study sought to evaluate how the recent increase in use of online meetings has influenced participant experiences with peer-based mutual support groups for problematic drinking.
methodsThe authors conducted semistructured interviews in June and July 2024 with 20 adults who participated in online mutual support meetings for problematic drinking. Participants were recruited from a nationwide online research panel. The authors conducted an ideal-type analysis to compare the experiences of individuals who differed in their modality (online vs. in person) preferences and motivations for using online meetings.
resultsThe authors identified four distinct types of online meeting users, who varied in their perceptions about the advantages of online meetings. Meeting maximizers valued flexibility and convenience and used online meetings to supplement in-person participation. Strategists viewed online meetings as a source of new ideas and urgent support and used a mix of both modalities to capitalize on the perceived distinct advantages of each. Online enthusiasts preferred online meetings because they afforded increased anonymity and control and reduced social pressure. Finally, compliance seekers preferred online meetings for their efficiency in facilitating compliance with legal requirements. Participants of all types reported technological barriers, inconsistent quality, and greater potential for disruptions as disadvantages of online meetings.
conclusionsOnline meetings offer distinct advantages for individuals with differing motivations for engaging in peer-based mutual support groups, functioning as a gateway support for some people and as an essential supplement to ongoing in-person support for others.
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.