The Helpfulness of Web-Based Mental Health and Well-being Forums for Providing Peer Support for Young People: Cross-sectional Exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young people are increasingly seeking out web-based support for their mental health and well-being. Peer support forums are popular with this age group, with young individuals valuing the fact that the forums are available 24/7, providing a safe and anonymous space for exploration. Currently, little systematic evaluation of the helpfulness of such forums in providing support has been conducted. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the helpfulness of the support offered within web-based mental health and well-being peer support forums for young people. It specifically investigated the self-reported user ratings of helpfulness reported through the completion of a developing experience measure. The ratings will be used to consider further development of the measure and reflect upon the overall helpfulness of the forums as indicated by the reported scores. METHODS: The study used routinely collected practice-based outcome data from web-based mental health forums for young people. These forums are hosted by the UK-based web-based therapy and support service, Kooth. A cross-sectional design was used to explore-using a range of inferential statistical measures-the outcomes reported by those accessing the forums using a Peer Online Community Experience Measure (POCEM). To consider the helpfulness in general, 23,443 POCEMs completed in 2020 were used. A second data set of 17,137 completed POCEMs from the same year was used to consider whether various engagement indicators had an impact upon the helpfulness rating. RESULTS: Female users aged between 11 and 16 years predominantly completed the POCEM. This is in keeping with the majority of those using the service. In total, 74.6% (8240/11,045) of the scores on the POCEM indicated that the individuals found the posts helpful. An ANOVA indicated that male users were more likely to report obtaining intrapersonal support, whereas female users obtained interpersonal support. Furthermore, the POCEM scores reflected the internal consistency of the measure and provided an insight into the way that young people made use of the peer support resource; for instance, posts that were rated more helpful were correlated with spending longer time reading them, and the topics discussed varied throughout the day with more mental health issues being discussed later at night. CONCLUSIONS: The results seem to demonstrate that, overall, the young people involved in this study found web-based peer support helpful. They indicate that peer support can provide an important strand of care within a supportive mental health ecosystem, particularly during time periods when in-person support is typically closed. However, limitations were noted, suggesting that caution is needed when interpreting the results of this study. Although such services are incredibly well used, they have received little research attention to date. As such, further investigation into what constitutes helpful and unhelpful peer support is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".