Jessica L Sousa, Haiden A Huskamp, Ateev Mehrotra, Alisa B Busch, Lori Uscher-Pines
{"title":"Experiences With Online Mutual Support Groups for Problematic Drinking.","authors":"Jessica L Sousa, Haiden A Huskamp, Ateev Mehrotra, Alisa B Busch, Lori Uscher-Pines","doi":"10.1176/appi.ps.20240551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Online 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":20878,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatric services","volume":" ","pages":"656-664"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12244056/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatric services","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.20240551","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This 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.
Methods: The 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.
Results: The 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.
Conclusions: Online 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.
期刊介绍：
Psychiatric Services, established in 1950, is published monthly by the American Psychiatric Association. The peer-reviewed journal features research reports on issues related to the delivery of mental health services, especially for people with serious mental illness in community-based treatment programs. Long known as an interdisciplinary journal, Psychiatric Services recognizes that provision of high-quality care involves collaboration among a variety of professionals, frequently working as a team. Authors of research reports published in the journal include psychiatrists, psychologists, pharmacists, nurses, social workers, drug and alcohol treatment counselors, economists, policy analysts, and professionals in related systems such as criminal justice and welfare systems. In the mental health field, the current focus on patient-centered, recovery-oriented care and on dissemination of evidence-based practices is transforming service delivery systems at all levels. Research published in Psychiatric Services contributes to this transformation.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
