Analyzing the Contents of a Large, Public Online Peer Support Forum for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Thematic Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating chronic anxiety disorder with low rates of remission. r/OCD is a peer support forum hosted by the Reddit website with over 180,000 users and 100-200 new posts daily. While peer support has been associated with improved treatment adherence and outcomes, online forums can also be an outlet for performing and accommodating compulsions (eg, seeking and receiving reassurance), which can ultimately exacerbate OCD. Objective: This study aims to inductively assess what types of content are posted on r/OCD, an online peer support forum for individuals with OCD, to better understand the prevalent topics, dynamics, and norms of such online communities. Methods: To describe the explicit content of the forum, 132 new posts with a total of 739 comments added to the subreddit within a 24-hour period from August 4, 2023, to August 5, 2023, were manually downloaded and coded using inductive thematic analysis. Though posts beyond the first 24 hours were downloaded, saturation of ideas was observed after the first 110 posts, and thus, no posts after the first 24 hours were included in the analysis. Through inductive thematic analysis, codes were organized into overarching themes. Results: Four main themes emerged during analysis: (1) validating OCD symptoms (n=69 total posts and comments), (2) connecting with peers with similar OCD themes (n=512), (3) coping with symptoms (n=280), and (4) sharing treatment experiences and advice (n=118). Many posts involved users describing their symptoms, questioning if a particular symptom was OCD, and asking other users if they had similar experiences. Users frequently categorized their OCD into subtypes using abbreviations (eg, "ROCD" [relationship OCD]) to seek others with similar experiences. A minority of posts solicited and provided advice on therapy and medication. Users were supportive and encouraging of each other's recovery journeys. Conclusions: Online peer support forum users demonstrated substantial knowledge of OCD and treatments; these forums enable users to receive social support and exchange helpful information and peer experiences related to seeking medical treatment. However, many users use the platform to connect with others experiencing similar subtypes of OCD or to seek confirmation that their symptoms are OCD, which is promoted by community norms and may suggest they are reassurance-seeking. Close moderation by health care professionals and restricting detailed sharing of OCD symptoms to prevent reassurance-seeking may be important for ensuring a net positive impact of online peer support forums for OCD. In addition, clinicians should consider if their patients may be reassurance-seeking on this and similar OCD forums, given their popularity. Future studies should conduct interviews with users and investigate patterns of user ability to further understand the potential harms and benefits of online peer support forums.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».