Cited by 90Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health and Patient InvolvementSchizophrenia research and treatment

Potential Benefits of Incorporating Peer-to-Peer Interactions Into Digital Interventions for Psychotic Disorders: A Systematic Review

Open access
Biagianti, Bruno, Quraishi, Sophia H., Schlosser, Danielle A.·2018·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Peer-to-peer interactions and support groups mitigate experiences of social isolation and loneliness often reported by individuals with psychotic disorders. Online peer-to-peer communication can promote broader use of this form of social support. Peer-to-peer interactions occur naturally on social media platforms, but they can negatively affect mental health. Recent digital interventions for persons with psychotic disorders have harnessed the principles of social media to incorporate peer-to-peer communication. This review examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of recent digital interventions in order to identify strategies to maximize benefits of online peer-to-peer communication for persons with psychotic disorders. METHODS: An electronic database search of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Health Technology Assessment Database was conducted in February 2017 and yielded a total of 1,015 results. Eight publications that reported data from six independent trials and five interventions were reviewed. RESULTS: The technology supporting peer-to-peer communication varied greatly across studies, from online forums to embedded social networking. When peer-to-peer interactions were moderated by facilitators, retention, engagement, acceptability, and efficacy were higher than for interventions with no facilitators. Individuals with psychotic disorders were actively engaged with moderated peer-to-peer communication and showed improvements in perceived social support. Studies involving service users in intervention design showed higher rates of acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with psychotic disorders value and benefit from digital interventions that include moderated peer-to-peer interactions. Incorporating peer-to-peer communication into digital interventions for this population may increase compliance with other evidence-based therapies by producing more acceptable and engaging online environments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ps.201700283

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Peer-to-peer support appeared to offer feasible and acceptable ways to augment digital mental health interventions for individuals with psychotic disorders by improving engagement, compliance, and adherence, and may also improve perceived social support.

    “A recent review by Biagianti et al (2018) found that peer-to-peer support appeared to offer feasible and acceptable ways to augment digital mental health interventions for individuals with psychotic disorders by specifically improving engagement, compliance, and adherence to the interventions, and may also improve perceived social support (Biagianti, Quraishi, & Schlosser, 2018).”

    From Social Media and Mental Health: Benefits, Risks, and Opportunities for Research and Practice (2020) · cites this paper as Biagianti, Quraishi, & Schlosser, 2018

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Biagianti, B., Quraishi, S. H., & Schlosser, D. A.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Biagianti, Bruno
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
2018-04-01
Volume
69
Issue
4
Pages
377-388
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W2773363546
Cited by
90
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
0.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH018261)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
peer interaction, digital interventions, psychosis, online peer support, social support, social isolation, loneliness, social media, online forums, social networking, treatment acceptability, user engagement
MeSH terms
Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Peer Group, Psychotherapy, Psychotic Disorders, Telemedicine, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review