Experiences With Online Mutual Support Groups for Problematic Drinking

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to evaluate how the recent increase in use of online meetings has influenced participant experiences with peer-based mutual support groups for problematic drinking. METHODS: The authors conducted semistructured interviews in June and July 2024 with 20 adults who participated in online mutual support meetings for problematic drinking. Participants were recruited from a nationwide online research panel. The authors conducted an ideal-type analysis to compare the experiences of individuals who differed in their modality (online vs. in person) preferences and motivations for using online meetings. RESULTS: The authors identified four distinct types of online meeting users, who varied in their perceptions about the advantages of online meetings. Meeting maximizers valued flexibility and convenience and used online meetings to supplement in-person participation. Strategists viewed online meetings as a source of new ideas and urgent support and used a mix of both modalities to capitalize on the perceived distinct advantages of each. Online enthusiasts preferred online meetings because they afforded increased anonymity and control and reduced social pressure. Finally, compliance seekers preferred online meetings for their efficiency in facilitating compliance with legal requirements. Participants of all types reported technological barriers, inconsistent quality, and greater potential for disruptions as disadvantages of online meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Online meetings offer distinct advantages for individuals with differing motivations for engaging in peer-based mutual support groups, functioning as a gateway support for some people and as an essential supplement to ongoing in-person support for others.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.