Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41032361›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Impacts of Using Peer Online Forums in Mental Health: Realist Evaluation Using Mixed Methods.

Fiona Lobban, Neil Caton, Anna Lindroos Cermakova, Gee Collins, Zoe Glossop, Jade Haines, Steven Jones, Christopher Lodge, Karen Machin, Paul Marshall and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

18 authors.

Fiona LobbanSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6594-4350
Neil CatonSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5691-0252
Anna Lindroos CermakovaSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8597-520X
Zoe GlossopSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6151-4860
Jade HainesBerkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Berkshire, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4321-4775
Steven JonesSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8801-5113
Christopher LodgeSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1115-5553
Paul MarshallSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3913-3359
Rachel MeacockDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8933-5058
Tamara RakićSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8591-923X
Paul RaysonSchool of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1257-2191
Heather RobinsonSpectrum Centre, Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3566-2253
Jo Rycroft-MaloneFaculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3858-5625
Elena SeminoLinguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3421-2963
Nick ShryaneSocial Statistics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7963-4601
Karin TustingLinguistics and English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8250-4779

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeer online forums offer people experiencing mental health challenges easily accessible and anonymous support. However, little is known about the impacts of using forums, how these impacts are generated, or who might benefit from which type of forum.

objectiveWe aimed to develop a program theory to understand how peer online mental health forums work to help potential users, health professionals, service providers, and commissioners to decide whether to use forums and which to choose.

methodsA realist evaluation using a mixed methods, case series design in collaboration with 7 peer online mental health forums was conducted. We triangulated analysis of a large web-based survey (n=791) with in-depth realist interviews (n=52) to test and refine previously developed program theories about the impacts of using online forums. We then analyzed forum posts to identify in situ evidence for our revised theories. We only used forum posts from individuals who had freely consented to posts being shared for research. Data collection and analysis involved extensive input from our patient and public involvement group, including forum users, moderators, and senior forum staff (n=22), which met monthly for 22 two-hour-long workshops throughout the study.

resultsImpacts of using peer online mental health forums were largely positive. Forums that are easy to navigate, make users feel safe to post, and are supported by well-trained moderators offering timely and sensitive responses can help people find new ways to make sense of their mental health challenges, feel understood, and accepted in the forum. This can lead to an increase in self-efficacy, a reduction in self-stigma, and increased mental well-being. Writing about experiences in a forum can itself be cathartic, but when posts have evidently been helpful to other members, posters also benefit from a sense of greater purpose and value. Negative impacts can occur if forums are difficult to navigate or if moderation is unresponsive, insensitive, or inadequate, as users can be left feeling unheard, misunderstood, or overly responsible for the welfare of others.

conclusionsForums offer accessible and inclusive ways to effectively support mental health for many people, some of whom may have limited access to other forms of help. The impacts on users are largely positive, but care is needed to ensure forums are well designed and moderators are well trained and supported. These findings are being used to inform the co-design of a web-based moderator toolkit and design guidelines, which will be made freely available.

trial registrationISRCTN 62469166; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN62469166.

Indexed as

InternetMental HealthPeer GroupFemaleHumansMaleSocial Supportimpactmental healthonline forumsrealist evaluationweb-based data

Identifiers

PMID41032361
PMCPMC12530154

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.