Exploring the REACHOUT Mental Health Support App for Type 1 Diabetes From the Perspectives of Recipients and Providers of Peer Support: Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Existing qualitative research in peer support interventions has largely focused on the recipients of support rather than those delivering support. Exploring the perspectives of both roles may provide a holistic understanding of the peer support experience. Objective: This study elicits the experiences of recipients and providers of support who participated in REACHOUT, a 6-month peer-led mental health support intervention delivered via mobile app for adults with type 1 diabetes. REACHOUT offered multiple support delivery modalities (one-on-one, group-based texting, and virtual face-to-face small group sessions) that could be customized by recipients. Methods: A total of 32 study participants (recipients and peer supporters) attended focus group discussions following the completion of REACHOUT. Thematic analysis was performed in an inductive approach. Results: Four major themes were identified by thematic analysis: (1) need for a sense of community and belonging, (2) factors to enhance the recipient-peer supporter experience, (3) key aspects of the peer supporter experience, and (4) importance of personalizing the user experience while using the REACHOUT mobile app. REACHOUT successfully fostered connectedness by bringing together adults with type 1 diabetes who previously felt isolated. Recipients felt greater agency when given the opportunity to self-select a peer supporter. The main factors considered during the matching process included insulin delivery and glucose monitoring systems, duration of diabetes, shared hobbies, life stage, and age. While support was designed to be unidirectional from peer supporter to recipient, the former also derived benefits. Peer supporters expressed the need for greater guidance around navigating boundaries and responding to emotionally charged conversations. Finally, the REACHOUT app was able to accommodate a heterogeneity of support needs by offering one-on-one and group support across multiple communication platforms including text, audio, and video. Conclusions: The success of peer-led mental health support interventions such as REACHOUT is likely associated with the recipient-peer supporter dynamic. By offering a range of support delivery and communication modalities, participants can better personalize solutions to meet their unique support needs. Understanding the perspectives of both recipients and peer supporters is essential to refining interventions and optimizing digitally delivered mental health support models.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».