Cited by 2Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesCOVID-19 and Mental HealthTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Dual Diagnosis Anonymous (DDA) and the Transition to Online Support During COVID-19

Milani, Raffaella Margherita, Keller, Annalise, Roush, Sean·2020·Journal of Concurrent Disorders

Abstract

Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly challenging for individuals with concurrent mental health and addiction problems. Like other mutual aid groups, Dual Diagnosis Anonymous (DDA) of Oregon in the US and DDA-UK were forced to suspend face to face meetings during the pandemic. To continue to support its members, DDA began offering online meetings. Objectives: this study explored attendees’ perceived effectiveness, strengths, and limitations of online support within the context of the pandemic. Methods: A total of 92 DDA members from the US (n = 71) and the UK (n = 18) completed an online survey, which included quantitative scales and open questions. Feelings of inclusion in online versus in-person meetings were assessed using an adaptation of the Work Group Inclusion Test (Chung et al., 2020). A supplementary interview was conducted with a DDA facilitator. The open survey questions and the interview were independently thematically analyzed by two investigators. Results: Attendance of meetings significantly increased after the introduction of online meetings (p < 0.001). Approximately half of the participants (51.09%) indicated that DDA online support was the most helpful form of support they received during lockdown; 98.77% of participants agreed that online support should continue after the lockdown. There was no significant difference regarding feelings of inclusion in online versus in-person meetings. Conclusions: Online meetings allowed DDA to go global and provided effective support to people with complex needs during the COVID-19 lockdown. Participants experienced a continuity of inclusion and accessibility due to the online provision. Implications: It is suggested that going forward, online support should continue alongside traditional face to face meetings due to its potential to increase convenience, accessibility, and inclusivity.

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 · 10.54127/jtfj8349

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Milani, R. M., Keller, A., & Roush, S.
Affiliations
  • University of West London (GB)
  • Pacific University Oregon (US)
Venue
Journal of Concurrent Disorders
Published
2020-09-20
Volume
3
Issue
3
ISSN
2562-7546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3199634091
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2022: 2
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Concurrent Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • UWL Repository (University of West London) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Alexander and Margaret Stewart Trust
  • Sir Halley Stewart Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
online support groups, COVID-19 pandemic, self-help groups, dual diagnosis, sense of inclusion, meeting attendance

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