Cited by 44Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Online emotional support delivered by trained volunteers: users’ satisfaction and their perception of the service compared to psychotherapy

Baumel, Amit·2015·Journal of Mental Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Technology could answer the substantial need in human resources available for supporting those who suffer from mental illness, by providing scalable methods to train and engage non-professionals to those who need their support. 7 Cups of Tea (7COT) platform was chosen for this study, because it provides a good case study for examining this kind of solution. AIM: The aim of this paper was to provide empirical findings regarding users' satisfaction with online emotional support provided by trained volunteers and how it is perceived in comparison to psychotherapy. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among a convenience sample of 7COT users. RESULTS: The findings showed high user satisfaction with the support provided by 7COT listeners and, on average, users who indicated to receive psychotherapy in their past marked the listeners' support to be as helpful as psychotherapy. Relating to psychotherapy and online emotional support advantages, different advantages were found. The findings suggest that receiving support from volunteers makes users feel that the support is more genuine. CONCLUSION: The paper provides preliminary evidence that people in emotional distress may find non-professionals support delivered through the use of technology to be helpful. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/09638237.2015.1079308

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In 7 studies, anonymity (users could share and receive information anonymously) was listed as a facilitating factor to engage and encourage disclosure of information.

    “Overall, 7 studies listed anonymity, meaning that users could share and receive information anonymously, as a facilitating factor to engage and encourage disclosure of information [41,88,129,137,141,148,232].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baumel, A.
Affiliations
Northwell Health (US)
Corresponding author
Baumel, Amit
Venue
Journal of Mental Health
Published
2015-09-03
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
313-320
ISSN
  • 0963-8237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0567
OpenAlex
W1761630259
Cited by
44
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
user satisfaction, psychotherapy comparison, mental illness, emotional distress, mental health technology
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Mental Disorders, Emotions, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Psychotherapy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Support, Volunteers, Patient Satisfaction, Telemedicine, Internet, Young Adult

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