Moderated Online Social Therapy for Young People With Active Suicidal Ideation: Qualitative Study.
internet-based intervention
social media
suicide
youth
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 04 2021
05 04 2021
Historique:
received:
11
09
2020
accepted:
08
02
2021
revised:
26
11
2020
entrez:
5
4
2021
pubmed:
6
4
2021
medline:
30
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Web-based interventions are a promising approach to support youth at risk of suicide, and those incorporating peer-to-peer social networking may have the added potential to target interpersonal states of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness. Owing to feasibility and safety concerns, including fear of contagion, this had not been tested until recently. In 2018, we conducted a pilot evaluation to test the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of a Moderated Online Social Therapy intervention, called Affinity, with a sample of young people with active suicidal ideation. The aim of this study is to report qualitative data collected from study participants regarding their experience of the web-based social network and the consequent safety features. Affinity is a closed website incorporating 3 key components: therapeutic content delivered via comics, peer-to-peer social networking, and moderation by peers and clinicians. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 young people who participated in the pilot study after 8 weeks of exposure to the intervention. Interview data from 2 young people who did not use Affinity were excluded from the analysis. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis, with the frequency of responses characterized using the consensual qualitative research method. The results are reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist. A total of 4 overarching themes were identified: a safe and supportive environment, the importance of mutual experiences, difficulty engaging and connecting, and the pros and cons of banning discussions about suicide. Interestingly, although Affinity was perceived to be safe and free of judgment, concerns about negative evaluation and triggering others were significant barriers to posting on the social network. Participants generally supported the banning of conversations about suicide, although for some this was perceived to reinforce stigma or was associated with frustration and distress. The results not only support the safety and potential therapeutic benefit of the social networking aspect of Affinity but also highlight several implementation challenges. There is a need to carefully balance the need for stringent safety and design features while ensuring that the potential for therapeutic benefit is maximized.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Web-based interventions are a promising approach to support youth at risk of suicide, and those incorporating peer-to-peer social networking may have the added potential to target interpersonal states of perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness. Owing to feasibility and safety concerns, including fear of contagion, this had not been tested until recently. In 2018, we conducted a pilot evaluation to test the feasibility, safety, and acceptability of a Moderated Online Social Therapy intervention, called Affinity, with a sample of young people with active suicidal ideation.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to report qualitative data collected from study participants regarding their experience of the web-based social network and the consequent safety features.
METHODS
Affinity is a closed website incorporating 3 key components: therapeutic content delivered via comics, peer-to-peer social networking, and moderation by peers and clinicians. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 young people who participated in the pilot study after 8 weeks of exposure to the intervention. Interview data from 2 young people who did not use Affinity were excluded from the analysis. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis, with the frequency of responses characterized using the consensual qualitative research method. The results are reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist.
RESULTS
A total of 4 overarching themes were identified: a safe and supportive environment, the importance of mutual experiences, difficulty engaging and connecting, and the pros and cons of banning discussions about suicide. Interestingly, although Affinity was perceived to be safe and free of judgment, concerns about negative evaluation and triggering others were significant barriers to posting on the social network. Participants generally supported the banning of conversations about suicide, although for some this was perceived to reinforce stigma or was associated with frustration and distress.
CONCLUSIONS
The results not only support the safety and potential therapeutic benefit of the social networking aspect of Affinity but also highlight several implementation challenges. There is a need to carefully balance the need for stringent safety and design features while ensuring that the potential for therapeutic benefit is maximized.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33818392
pii: v23i4e24260
doi: 10.2196/24260
pmc: PMC8056298
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e24260Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
©Eleanor Bailey, Jo Robinson, Mario Alvarez-Jimenez, Maja Nedeljkovic, Lee Valentine, Sarah Bendall, Simon D'Alfonso, Tamsyn Gilbertson, Ben McKechnie, Simon Rice. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 05.04.2021.
Références
Psychol Rev. 2010 Apr;117(2):575-600
pubmed: 20438238
EClinicalMedicine. 2018 Oct 28;4-5:52-91
pubmed: 31193651
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;12(4):613-625
pubmed: 27311581
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Jan;2(1):e25-e36
pubmed: 33328037
J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016 Spring;25(2):73-9
pubmed: 27274742
J Affect Disord. 2019 Feb 15;245:152-162
pubmed: 30390504
Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2020 Feb;50(1):151-179
pubmed: 31448847
Internet Interv. 2017 Jun 29;9:65-73
pubmed: 30135839
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 13;22(8):e17155
pubmed: 32788151
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jan 15;8(1):e12516
pubmed: 31939744
Afr J Disabil. 2014 Nov 21;3(1):132
pubmed: 28730005
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 16;12(8):e0181722
pubmed: 28813437
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;53(7):663-671
pubmed: 29721594
Behav Res Ther. 2017 Jan;88:19-25
pubmed: 28110672
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2018 Jul;21(7):437-443
pubmed: 29995530
Health Commun. 2014;29(9):911-23
pubmed: 24345206
J Affect Disord. 2018 Oct 1;238:499-505
pubmed: 29936387
Depress Anxiety. 2009;26(8):758-63
pubmed: 18781662
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 26;22(6):e17570
pubmed: 32384056
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2016 Apr;10(2):103-21
pubmed: 25702826
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 May 13;21(1):37
pubmed: 32404098
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019 Aug;22(8):535-542
pubmed: 31361508
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Crisis. 2016 Sep;37(5):319-322
pubmed: 27868447
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 03;17(7):
pubmed: 32260111
JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Feb 1;75(2):113-114
pubmed: 29238805
Psychol Med. 2018 Mar;48(4):554-565
pubmed: 28805169
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Sep 15;19(9):e306
pubmed: 28916506
J Affect Disord. 2017 Jun;215:37-48
pubmed: 28315579
Crisis. 2020 May;41(3):205-213
pubmed: 31657643
J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016 Spring;25(2):80-6
pubmed: 27274743
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Aug 15;17(1):297
pubmed: 28810841
Australas Psychiatry. 2017 Apr;25(2):112-116
pubmed: 28135816
JMIR Ment Health. 2016 Nov 23;3(4):e50
pubmed: 27881357
Internet Interv. 2020 May 08;20:100323
pubmed: 32435600
J Abnorm Psychol. 2019 Apr;128(3):185-199
pubmed: 30869927
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941