Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study

Emma Gliddon, Sue Lauder, Lesley Berk, Victoria Cosgrove, David Grimm, Seetal Dodd, Trisha Suppes, Michael Berk, Emma Gliddon, Sue Lauder, Lesley Berk, Victoria Cosgrove, David Grimm, Seetal Dodd, Trisha Suppes, Michael Berk

Abstract

Background: Online, self-guided programs exist for a wide range of mental health conditions, including bipolar disorder, and discussion boards are often part of these interventions. The impact engagement with these discussion boards has on the psychosocial well-being of users is largely unknown. More specifically we need to clarify the influence of the type and level of engagement on outcomes. The primary aim of this exploratory study is to determine if there is a relationship between different types (active, passive or none) and levels (high, mid and low) of discussion board engagement and improvement in outcome measures from baseline to follow up, with a focus on self-reported social support, stigma, quality of life and levels of depression and mania. The secondary aim of this study is to identify any differences in demographic variables among discussion users.

Methods/design: The present study is a sub-study of the MoodSwings 2.0 3-arm randomised controlled trial (discussion board only (arm 1), discussion board plus psychoeducation (arm 2), discussion board, psychoeducation plus cognitive behavioural therapy-based tools (arm 3)). Discussion engagement will be measured via online participant activity monitoring. Assessments include online self-report as well as blinded phone interviews at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow up.

Discussion: The results of this study will help to inform future programs about whether or not discussion boards are a beneficial inclusion in online self-help interventions. It will also help to determine if motivating users to actively engage in online discussion is necessary, and if so, what level of engagement is optimal to produce the most benefit. Future programs may benefit through being able to identify those most likely to poorly engage, based on demographic variables, so motivational strategies can be targeted accordingly.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02118623 registered April 15 2014 and NCT02106078 registered May 16 2013.

References

    1. Barak A, Hen L, Boniel-Nissim M, Shapira NA. A Comprehensive Review and a Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Internet-Based Psychotherapeutic Interventions. J. Technol. Hum. Serv. 2008;26(2–4):109–160. doi: 10.1080/15228830802094429.
    1. Lauder S, Chester A, Castle D, Dodd S, Gliddon E, Berk L, Chamberlain J, Klein B, Gilbert M, Austin DW, et al. A randomised head to head trial of : An internet based self-help program for bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2015;171:13–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.08.008.
    1. Griffiths KM, Calear AL, Banfield M. Systematic review on Internet Support Groups (ISGs) and depression (1): Do ISGs reduce depressive symptoms? J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(3):e40. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1270.
    1. van Uden-Kraan CF, Drossaert CH, Taal E, Seydel ER, van de Laar MA. Self-reported differences in empowerment between lurkers and posters in online patient support groups. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(2):e18. doi: 10.2196/jmir.992.
    1. Suler J. The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2004;7(3):321–326. doi: 10.1089/1094931041291295.
    1. Townsend L, Gearing RE, Polyanskaya O. Influence of health beliefs and stigma on choosing internet support groups over formal mental health services. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(4):370–376. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201100196.
    1. Tanis M. Online social support groups. In: Joinson AN, McKenna KYA, Postmes T, Reips U-D, editors. Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology. 2007. p. 37.
    1. Michalak EE, Yatham LN, Kolesar S, Lam RW. Bipolar disorder and quality of life: a patient-centered perspective. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(1):25–37. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-0376-7.
    1. Cobb S. Social Support as a Moderator of Life Stress. Psychosom Med. 1976;38(5):300–314. doi: 10.1097/00006842-197609000-00003.
    1. Cutrona CE, Suhr JA. Controllability of Stressful Events and Satisfaction With Spouse Support Behaviors. Commun. Res. 1992;19(2):154–174. doi: 10.1177/009365092019002002.
    1. Coulson NS, Buchanan H, Aubeeluck A. Social support in cyberspace: a content analysis of communication within a Huntington’s disease online support group. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68(2):173–178. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.06.002.
    1. Rihmer Z. Prediction and prevention of suicide in bipolar disorder. Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2005;2:48–54.
    1. Rihmer Z, Fawcett J. Suicide and Bipolar Disorder. In: Yatham LN, Maj M, editors. Bipolar Disorder: Clinical and Neurobiological Foundations. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. pp. 62–68.
    1. Johnson L, Lundstrom O, Aberg-Wistedt A, Mathe AA. Social support in bipolar disorder: its relevance to remission and relapse. Bipolar Disord. 2003;5:129–137. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-5618.2003.00021.x.
    1. Cohen AN, Hammen C, Henry RM, Daley SE. Effects of stress and social support on recurrence in bipolar disorder. J Affect Disord. 2004;82(1):143–147. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2003.10.008.
    1. Cerit C, Filizer A, Tural U, Tufan AE. Stigma: a core factor on predicting functionality in bipolar disorder. Compr Psychiatry. 2012;53(5):484–489. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.08.010.
    1. Bauer R, Bauer M, Spiessl H, Kagerbauer T. Cyber-support: an analysis of online self-help forums (online self-help forums in bipolar disorder) Nord J Psychiatry. 2013;67(3):185–190. doi: 10.3109/08039488.2012.700734.
    1. Wright K. Perceptions of on-line support providers: An examination of perceived homophily, source credibility, communication and social support within on-line support groups. Commun. Q. 2000;48(1):44–59. doi: 10.1080/01463370009385579.
    1. Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing Stigma. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27:363–385. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363.
    1. Proudfoot JG, Parker GB, Benoit M, Manicavasagar V, Smith M, Gayed A. What happens after diagnosis? Understanding the experiences of patients with newly-diagnosed bipolar disorder. Health Expect. 2009;12(2):120–129. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00541.x.
    1. Stain HJ, Galletly CA, Clark S, Wilson J, Killen EA, Anthes L, Campbell LE, Hanlon MC, Harvey C. Understanding the social costs of psychosis: the experience of adults affected by psychosis identified within the second Australian National Survey of Psychosis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2012;46(9):879–889. doi: 10.1177/0004867412449060.
    1. Wright KB, Bell SB. Health-related Support Groups on the Internet: Linking Empirical Findings to Social Support and Computer-mediated Communication Theory. J Health Psychol. 2003;8(1):39–54. doi: 10.1177/1359105303008001429.
    1. Morselli PL. What the patients tell us: A Preliminary Report on the GAMIAN International Survey, with Specific Reference to the Italian Data. In: Guimon J, Sartorius N, editors. Manage or Perish: The Challenges of Managed Mental Health Care in Europe. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000. pp. 475–484.
    1. Crabtree JW, Haslam SA, Postmes T, Haslam C. Mental Health Support Groups, Stigma, and Self-Esteem: Positive and Negative Implications of Group Identification. J. Soc. Issues. 2010;66(3):553–569. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01662.x.
    1. Lamberg L. Online Empathy for Mood Disorders: Patients Turn to Internet Support Groups. JAMA. 2003;289(23):3073–3077. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3073.
    1. Smith DJ, Griffiths E, Poole R, di Florio A, Barnes E, Kelly MJ, Craddock N, Hood K, Simpson S. Beating Bipolar: exploratory trial of a novel Internet-based psychoeducational treatment for bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2011;13(5–6):571–577. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5618.2011.00949.x.
    1. Crisp D, Griffiths K, Mackinnon A, Bennett K, Christensen H. An online intervention for reducing depressive symptoms: secondary benefits for self-esteem, empowerment and quality of life. Psychiatry Res. 2014;216(1):60–66. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.041.
    1. Nimrod G. Beneficial Participation: Lurking vs. Posting in Online Support Groups. In: Ahmed R, Bates BR, editors. Health Communication and Mass Media: An Integrated Approach to Policy and Practice. Surrey: Gower; 2013. pp. 81–95.
    1. First MB, Williams JBW, Karg RS, Spitzer RL. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders –Research Version (SCID-5-RV) Arlington: American Psychiatric Assocation; 2014.
    1. Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–389. doi: 10.1192/bjp.134.4.382.
    1. Young RC, Biggs JT, Ziegler VE, Meyer DA. A Rating Scale for Mania: Reliability, Validity and Sensitivity. Br. J. Psychiatry. 1978;133:429–435. doi: 10.1192/bjp.133.5.429.
    1. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23(1):56–62. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56.
    1. Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(6):705–714. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-B.
    1. Stuart H, Milev R, Koller M. The inventory of stigmatizing experiences: Its development and reliability. World Psychiatry. 2005;4(Suppl 1):35–39.
    1. Endicott J, Nee J, Harrison W, Blumenthal R. Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire: a new measure. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1993;29(2):321–326.
    1. Stevanovic D. Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-short form for quality of life assessments in clinical practice: a psychometric study. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2011;18(8):744–750. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01735.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere