CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health Treatment and Access

Depression/Bipolar Peer Support Groups: Perceptions of Group Members about Effectiveness and Differences from Other Mental Health Services

Open access
Behler, Joe, Daniels, Allen, Scott, Jennifer, Mehl-Madrona, Lewis·2017·The Qualitative Report
DOI 10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2964
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Peer support services remain poorly understood by many mental health service providers. In this study we explored the views of people who use peer led support groups. We asked how adding peer support groups changed, balanced, or augmented the use of conventional mental health services. Participants were 43 adults attending 4 peer led support groups for depression/bipolar disorder. Data consisted of observations of all 43 participants interacting in their group, in-depth interviews of 20 participants, and results from 2 standardized questionnaires to ballpark the level of symptom severity relative to other groups. Through constant comparative analysis, 12 categories emerged. The most salient features of our findings consisted of the shared perception that groups promoted recovery and augmented conventional services. Members felt acceptance due to their shared diagnoses. Groups provided an experience of community in which recovery skills could be practiced, practical advice received, and hope and empowerment encouraged. Groups appeared to provide participants with important support and healing unavailable from psychotherapy and psychiatry. Peer support groups appeared to be an important addition and sometimes an adequate substitute for psychotherapy and/or psychiatry. Further research is indicated and quantitative students should build on the insights of qualitative studies in developing their protocols.

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 · 10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2964

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Behler et al. (2017) and Kelly et al. (2019) observed that mutual aid groups appeared to provide participants with bipolar disorder with support and healing that psychotherapy and psychiatry did not offer.

    “Behler et al. (2017) and Kelly et al. (2019) observed that MAG appeared to provide participants with BD with the support and healing that psychotherapy and psychiatry did not offer.”

    From Analysis of the Efficacy of Mindfulness Meditation in a Mutual Aid Group for Bipolar Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as Behler et al. (2017)

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509-536). London, UK: Sage.
  2. Corrigan, P. W., Calabrese, J. D., Diwan, S. E., Keogh, C. B., Keck, L., & Mussey, C. (2002). Some recovery processes in mutual-help groups for persons with mental illness: Qualitative analysis of program materials and testimonies. Community Mental Health Journal, 38(4), 287-301.
  3. Laudet, A. B., Magura, S., Vogel, H. S., & Knight, E. (2000). Addictions services: Support, mutual aid, and recovery from dual diagnosis. Community Mental Health Journal, 36(5), 457-476.
  4. Rogers, E. S., Chamberlin, E. M., & Crean, T. (1997). A consumer-constructed scale to measure empowerment. Psychiatric Services, 48(8), 1042-1047.
  5. Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3 rd ed.). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Behler, J., Daniels, A., Scott, J., & Mehl-Madrona, L.
Affiliations
  • Union Institute & University (US)
  • Health Care Consultant
  • Coyote Institute
Venue
The Qualitative Report
Publisher
Nova Southeastern University
Published
2017-01-16
ISSN
  • 1052-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 2160-3715
DOI
10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2964
OpenAlex
W2580046062
Cited by
6
References
37
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • The Qualitative Report (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • NSUWorks (Nova Southeastern University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
peer support groups, peer-led support, depression, bipolar disorder, mental health services, recovery, community, empowerment, symptom severity, psychotherapy

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