Understanding the Needs of Moderators in Online Mental Health Forums: Realist Synthesis and Recommendations for Support
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in the use of online mental health forums to support mental health. These forums are often moderated by trained moderators to ensure a safe, therapeutic environment. While the moderator role is rewarding, it can also be challenging. There is a need to understand the impact of the role on moderators and how they can best be supported to maintain psychological well-being. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how, why, and in what contexts moderator well-being is affected by the moderator role and produce actionable recommendations for how moderators can best be supported to maintain workplace psychological well-being. METHODS: We conducted realist synthesis of (1) published and gray literature from 2019 to 2023, (2) stakeholder interviews with forum moderators and hosts, and (3) moderator training manuals developed by organizations that host online mental health forums. Self-determination theory was used as the theoretical basis for this synthesis. RESULTS: We developed 24 context-mechanism-outcome configurations from our realist analysis of 9 published papers, 18 interviews, and 5 training manuals. The findings highlight the specific ways in which moderator well-being can be supported through meeting the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Forums that allow moderators to work in alignment with their personal motivations can increase moderator well-being. Forum organizations should support moderator competence through initial expectation setting, especially around moderator responsibility for user well-being, and ongoing support, such as meaningful supervision and peer support. Co-designed training, reflective practice, and experiential learning are all key to increasing moderator competence and satisfaction in the workplace. Working within a diverse team with access to innovative forum design can increase moderator psychological well-being. Organizational support for moderators' well-being through monitoring and encouraging self-care is vital to ensure moderators can effectively carry out their role. Making and supporting meaningful relationships in the forum can boost psychological well-being and the therapeutic value of the moderator role. Key challenges for moderators were dealing with conflicts between supporting open discussion and ensuring a safe community environment, sharing lived experiences in positive ways for both moderator and user, and supporting people within the limitations of an anonymous forum. CONCLUSIONS: This realist synthesis is the first to examine the impacts on well-being of being a moderator of an online mental health forum. Recommendations to support moderator psychological well-being are proposed, targeted at specific stakeholder groups to aid implementation. Organizational-level endorsement and facilitation of support are particularly important for the realization of recommendations and interventions to support moderator well-being.
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 | 0,194 | 0,346 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,030 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,002 |
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 ».