Advertisement

Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 221–231 | Cite as

The Future of Peer Support in Digital Psychiatry: Promise, Progress, and Opportunities

  • Karen L. FortunaEmail author
  • Maria Venegas
  • Emre Umucu
  • George Mois
  • Robert Walker
  • Jessica M. Brooks
Technology and its Impact on Mental Health Care (J Torous and T Becker, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Technology and its Impact on Mental Health Care

Abstract

Purpose

This selective review highlights promising findings and future opportunities relevant to digital peer support services. This review considered literature published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals within the past 36 months.

Recent findings

Digital peer support spans multiple technology modalities: peer-delivered and smartphone-supported interventions, peer-supported asynchronous technology, artificial peer support, informal peer-to-peer support via social media, video games, and virtual worlds. Digital peer support is an emerging area of research that shows promise in improving mental health symptoms, medical and psychiatric self-management skill development, social functioning, hope, and empowerment.

Summary

As the science of peer support in digital psychiatry advances, peer support specialists will likely have an increasingly important role in the mental health workforce—from providing evidence-based, fidelity-adherent interventions to expanding their reach to vulnerable populations and communities.

Keywords

Peer support Digital health technology Patient-facilitated networks Mental health care 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Karen L. Fortuna, Maria Venegas, Emre Umucu, George Mois, Robert Walker, and Jessica M. Brooks declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. (2017). Promoting recovery in mental health and related services: handbook for personal use and teaching: WHO QualityRights training to act, unite and empower for mental health (pilot version). World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254811. License: CC BYNC-SA 3.0 IGO.
  2. 2.
    Solomon P. Peer support/peer provided services underlying processes, benefits, and critical ingredients. Psychiatric Rehabilation Journal J. 2004;27(4):392–401.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mead S, MacNeil C. Peer support: what makes it unique. Int J Psychosoc Rehabil. 2006;10(2):29–37.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wexler B, Davidson L, Styron T, Strauss J. Severe and persistent mental illness. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chinman M, George P, Dougherty R, et al. Peer support services for individuals with serious mental illnesses: assessing the evidence. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(4):429–41.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Druss B, Singh M, von Esenwein S, et al. Peer-led self-management of general medical conditions for patients with serious mental illnesses: a randomized trial. Psychiatr Serv. 2018;69(5):529–35.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davidson L, Bellamy C, Guy K, Miller R. Peer support among persons with severe mental illnesses: a review of evidence and experience. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(2):123–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naslund J, Grande S, Aschbrenner K, Elwyn G. Naturally occurring peer support through social media: the experiences of individuals with severe mental illness using YouTube. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110171.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naslund J, Aschbrenner K, Marsch L, McHugo G, Bartels S. Facebook for supporting a lifestyle intervention for people with major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia: an exploratory study. Psychiatry Q. 2018;89(1):81–94.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colder Carras M, Van Rooij A, Spruijt-Metz D, et al. Commercial video games as therapy: a new research agenda to unlock the potential of a global pastime. Front Psych. 2017;8:300.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campbell S, Holter M, Manthey T, Rapp C. The effect of CommonGround software and decision support center. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. 2014;17(2):166–80.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salyers M, Fukui S, Bonfils K, et al. Consumer outcomes after implementing CommonGround as an approach to shared decision making. Psychiatr Serv. 2016;68(3):299–302.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fortuna K, DiMilia PR, Lohman MC, Bruce ML, Zubritsky CD, Halaby MR, et al. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a peer-delivered and technology supported self-management intervention for older adults with serious mental illness. Psychiatry Q. 2018;89(2):293–305.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rehm I, Foenander E, Wallace K, Abbott J, Kyrios M, Thomas N. What role can avatars play in e-mental health interventions? Exploring new models of client-therapist interaction. Front Psych. 2016;7(186).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Medeiros L, Bosse T. An empathic agent that alleviates stress by providing support via social media paper presented at. In: AAMAS ’17 Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems Pages; 2017.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Fortuna K, Barr P, Goldstein C, et al. Application of community-engaged research to inform the development and implementation of a peer-delivered mobile health intervention for adults with serious mental illness. JMIR: J Participatory Med. 2019;11(1):e12380 The authors, researchers at Dartmouth College, Brown University, Massachusetts Department of Mental Health, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and Massachusetts General Hospital, used a peer-researcher equal partnership approach to create and describe a guiding framework for the development, testing, and implementation of peer-delivered mobile health interventions in community settings. The framework highlights principles and methods essential to best practices in community-based, multidisciplinary health intervention research in digital psychiatry.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Fortuna KL, Brooks JM, Umucu E, Walker R, Chow P. Peer support:a human factor to enhance engagement in digital health behavior change interventions. Journal of Technology and Behavioral Science. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-019-00105-x. The authors, researchers and peer support specialists from Dartmouth College, Portland State University, University of Texas at El Paso, Massachusetts Department of Mental Health, and University of Virginia, conducted a theoretical and empirical literature review and developed one of the first models based on peer support factors associated with engagement in digital health interventions. It was proposed that a theoretical model tailored to peer-specific components of digital health services might improve behavioral change outcomes within peer-led programs and collaborations.
  18. 18.
    Sarason IG, Levine HM, Basham RB, Sarason BR. Assessing social support: the Social Support Questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;44(1):127–39.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Borkman T. Experiential Knowledge. A new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Soc Serv Rev. 1976;50(3):445–56.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skovholt TM. The client as helper: a means to promote psychological growth. Couns Psychol. 1974;4(3):58–64.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bandura A, Ramachaudran VS. Encyclopedia of human behavior, vol. 4. New York: Academic Press; 1994. p. 71–81.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat. 1954;7:117–40.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mueller NE, Panch T, Macias C, Cohen BM, Ongur D, Baker JT. Using smartphone apps to promote psychiatric rehabilitation in a peer-led community support program: pilot study. JMIR mental health. 2018;5(3):e10092.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chan S, Li L, Torous J, Gratzer D, Yellowlees P. Review of use of asynchronous technologies incorporatedin mental health care. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018;20(10):85.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deegan PE, Rapp C, Holter M, Riefer M. Best practices: a program to support shared decision making in an outpatient psychiatric medication clinic. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(6):603–5.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    • Deegan PE, Carpenter-Song E, Drake RE, Naslund JA, Luciano A, Hutchison SL. Enhancing clients’ communication regarding goals for using psychiatric medications. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;68(8):771–5 The authors, researchers from Pat Deegan Ph.D. & Associates, Dartmouth College, Duke University, and the Community Care Behavioral Health Organization, used a public mental health database query to determine that more than 17,000 consumer self-advocacy statements were made during web-based, peer co-facilitated shared decision making interventions at psychiatric medication visits. The authors also conducted a qualitative analysis of a random sample of 300 statements and found that service users most wanted psychiatric medications to assist with symptom control toward the pursuit of meaningful life goals and improved functioning.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fortuna KL, Lohman MC, Batsis JA, et al. Patient experience with healthcare services among older adults with serious mental illness compared to the general older population. Int J Psychiatry Med. 2017;52(4–6):381–98.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fortuna K, Naslund J, Aschbrenner K, et al. Text message exchanges between older adults with serious mental illness and older certified peer specialists in a smartphone-supported self-management intervention. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2019;42(1):57–63.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Leary K, Schueller S, Wobbrock J, Pratt W. “Suddenly, we got to become therapists for each other”: designing peer support chats for mental health. Paper presented at: CHI ’18 Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2018. Montreal QC, Canada.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173905.
  31. 31.
    Vance K, Howe W, Dellavalle RP. Social internet sites as a source of public health information. Dermatol Clin. 2009;27(2):133–6.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aschbrenner KA, Naslund JA, Gorin AA, et al. Peer support and mobile health technology targeting obesity-related cardiovascular risk in young adults with serious mental illness: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018;74:97–106.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Castelein S, Bruggeman R, Van Busschbach JT, et al. The effectiveness of peer support groups in psychosis: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008;118(1):64–72.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bracke P, Verhaeghe M. The balance of peer support among persons with chronic mental health problems: consequences and antecedents. Paper presented at: 11th International Congress of the European Society for Health and Medical Sociology. 2006.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Naslund J, Aschbrenner K. Risks to privacy with use of social media: understanding the views of social media users with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201800520.
  36. 36.
    Leutwyler H, Hubbard E, Vinogradov S, Dowling G. Videogames to promote physical activity in older adults with schizophrenia. Games Health J. 2012;1(5):381–3.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Han D, Renshaw P, Sim M, Kim J, Arenella L, Lyoo I. The effect of Internet video game play on clinical and extrapyramidal symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2008;103(1–3):338–40.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morie JF, Chance E. Extending the reach of health care for obesity and diabetes using virtual worlds. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(2):272–6.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yee N, Bailenson J. The Proteus effect: the effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Hum Commun Res. 2007;33(3):271–90.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rus-Calafell M, Gutiérrez-Maldonado J, Ribas-Sabaté J. A virtual reality-integrated program for improving social skills in patients with schizophrenia: a pilot study. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2014;45(1):81–9.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim S, Ku J, Han K, Lee H, Park J, Kim J. Virtual reality applications for patients with schizophrenia. J Cyber Ther Rehabil. 2008;1:101–12.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bell M, Weinstein A. Simulated job interview skill training for people with psychiatric disability: feasibility and tolerability of virtual reality training. Schizophr Bull. 2011;37(2):S91–7.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sohn B, Hwang J, Park S, et al. Developing a virtual reality-based vocational rehabilitation training program for patients with schizophrenia. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2016;19(11):686–91.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Coeckelbergh M. health care, capabilities, and AI assistive technologies. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 2010;13(2):181–90.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Coeckelbergh M. Artificial agents, good care, and modernity. Theor Med Bioeth. 2015;36(4):285.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Feil-Seifer D, Skinner K, Matarić M. Benchmarks for evaluating socially assistive robotics. Interact Stud. 2007;8(3):423–39.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Miller E, Polson D. Apps, avatars, and robots: the future of mental healthcare. Issues in Ment Health Nurs. 2019;40(3):208–14.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zwijsen S, Niemeijer A, Hertogh C. Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people: an overview of the literature. J Ageing Ment Health. 2011;15(4):419–27.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brittain K, Corner L, Robison L, Bond J. Ageing in place and technologies of place: the lived experience of people with dementia in changing social, physical, and technological environments. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2010. p. 97–111.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology. 2009;8:94–103.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Burton A. Dolphins, dogs, and robot seals for the treatment of neurological disease. Lancet Neurol. 2013;12:851–2.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Diehl J, Schmitt L, Villano M, Crowell C. The clinical use of robots for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a critical review. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2012;6:249–62.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fasola J, Matarić M. A socially assistive robot exercise coach for the elderly. J Hum–Robot Interact. 2013;2(2):3–32.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rabbit S, Kazdin A, Scassellati B. Integrating socially assistive robotics into mental healthcare interventions: applications and recommendations for expanded use. Clin Psychol Rev. 2015;35:35–46.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Khan R, Das A. Introduction to chatbots. Berkeley, CA: Apress; 2018.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fortuna K, Naslund J, Brooks J, Deegan P. Systematic review of peer support interventions in digital psychiatry (unpublished study).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Larsen M, Huckvale K, Nicholas J, et al. Using science to sell apps: evaluation of mental health app store quality claims. npj Digital Medicine, vol. 2; 2019. p. 18.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Smikowski J, Dewane S, Johnson ME, Brems C, Bruss C, Roberts LW. Community-based participatory research for improved mental health. Ethics Behav. 2009;19(6):461–78.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Forsythe L, Carman K, Szydlowski V, et al. Patient engagement in research: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Health Aff. 2019;38(3).  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05067.
  60. 60.
    Salzer M, Schwenk E, Brusilovskiy E. Certified peer specialists roles and activities: results from a national survey. Psychiatr Serv. 2010;61(5):520–3Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bartels S, DiMilia P, Fortuna KL, Naslund J. Integrated care for older adults with serious mental illness and medical comorbidity: evidence-based models and future research directions. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2018;41(1):153–64.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kumar S, Shah N. False Information on web and social media: a survey. 2018;1(1):35.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Bode L, Vraga E. See something, say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 2017;33(9):1131–40.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kaye H, Yeager P, Reed M. Disparities in usage of assistive technology among people with disabilities. Assist Technol. 2008;20(4):194–203.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nicholson J, Wright S, Carlisle A. Pre-post, mixed-methods feasibility study of the WorkingWell mobile support tool for individuals with serious mental illness in the USA: a pilot study protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019936.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pols J. Care at a distance: on the closeness of technology. Amsterdam: University Press; 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen L. Fortuna
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Venegas
    • 2
  • Emre Umucu
    • 3
  • George Mois
    • 4
  • Robert Walker
    • 5
  • Jessica M. Brooks
    • 6
  1. 1.The Geisel School of Medicine at DartmouthConcordUSA
  2. 2.CDC Health Promotion Research Center at DartmouthLebanonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Rehabilitation SciencesUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA
  4. 4.School of Social WorkUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  5. 5.Massachusetts Department of Mental HealthBostonUSA
  6. 6.Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical CenterJames J. Peters VA Medical CenterBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations