Cargando…

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

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. Mor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gliddon, Emma, Lauder, Sue, Berk, Lesley, Cosgrove, Victoria, Grimm, David, Dodd, Seetal, Suppes, Trisha, Berk, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26462799
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0630-7
_version_ 1782395101199204352
author Gliddon, Emma
Lauder, Sue
Berk, Lesley
Cosgrove, Victoria
Grimm, David
Dodd, Seetal
Suppes, Trisha
Berk, Michael
author_facet Gliddon, Emma
Lauder, Sue
Berk, Lesley
Cosgrove, Victoria
Grimm, David
Dodd, Seetal
Suppes, Trisha
Berk, Michael
author_sort Gliddon, Emma
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4604761
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46047612015-10-15 Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study Gliddon, Emma Lauder, Sue Berk, Lesley Cosgrove, Victoria Grimm, David Dodd, Seetal Suppes, Trisha Berk, Michael BMC Psychiatry Study Protocol 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. BioMed Central 2015-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4604761/ /pubmed/26462799 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0630-7 Text en © Gliddon et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Gliddon, Emma
Lauder, Sue
Berk, Lesley
Cosgrove, Victoria
Grimm, David
Dodd, Seetal
Suppes, Trisha
Berk, Michael
Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study
title Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study
title_full Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study
title_fullStr Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study
title_short Evaluating discussion board engagement in the MoodSwings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study
title_sort evaluating discussion board engagement in the moodswings online self-help program for bipolar disorder: protocol for an observational prospective cohort study
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604761/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26462799
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-015-0630-7
work_keys_str_mv AT gliddonemma evaluatingdiscussionboardengagementinthemoodswingsonlineselfhelpprogramforbipolardisorderprotocolforanobservationalprospectivecohortstudy
AT laudersue evaluatingdiscussionboardengagementinthemoodswingsonlineselfhelpprogramforbipolardisorderprotocolforanobservationalprospectivecohortstudy
AT berklesley evaluatingdiscussionboardengagementinthemoodswingsonlineselfhelpprogramforbipolardisorderprotocolforanobservationalprospectivecohortstudy
AT cosgrovevictoria evaluatingdiscussionboardengagementinthemoodswingsonlineselfhelpprogramforbipolardisorderprotocolforanobservationalprospectivecohortstudy
AT grimmdavid evaluatingdiscussionboardengagementinthemoodswingsonlineselfhelpprogramforbipolardisorderprotocolforanobservationalprospectivecohortstudy
AT doddseetal evaluatingdiscussionboardengagementinthemoodswingsonlineselfhelpprogramforbipolardisorderprotocolforanobservationalprospectivecohortstudy
AT suppestrisha evaluatingdiscussionboardengagementinthemoodswingsonlineselfhelpprogramforbipolardisorderprotocolforanobservationalprospectivecohortstudy
AT berkmichael evaluatingdiscussionboardengagementinthemoodswingsonlineselfhelpprogramforbipolardisorderprotocolforanobservationalprospectivecohortstudy