Characterizing online social support for alcohol use disorder: A mixed-methods approach
Characterizing online social support for alcohol use disorder: A mixed-methods approach
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/acer.15187
复制
发表时间：
2023-11-14
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Pedersen, Sarah L.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Colditz, Jason B.;Chu, Kar-Hai;Pedersen, Sarah L.
背景：在线社交媒体社区是讨论酒精使用障碍(AUD)和康复的越来越受欢迎的场所。对于在这种环境中交换的社会支持的不同背景知之甚少，这些背景对于理解在线恢复支持的社会动态至关重要。方法：我们在一年的时间里从戒酒康复论坛上随机选择了一篇每天一篇的帖子。在既定的社会支助理论框架内，对帖子的直接回应是双重编码的。在混合方法的研究框架内，我们量化了1386个回答的语言特征(即文本长度、复杂性和情绪)，并定性地探索了不同类型的社会支持内部和之间的主题。结果：情感支持是最普遍的(74%的回答)，并且在38%的回答中被认为是唯一的支持形式。与其他支持类型相比，情感支持反应明显更短、更不复杂、更积极有效。评估支持在55%的受访者中也很常见，而信息支持的比例仅为17%。支助类型之间有很大的重叠，40%的答复包括两种或两种以上的类型。突出的主题包括在情感支持中普遍使用社区特有的缩略语。评估支持传达了关于被认为(不)有利于澳元恢复的态度和行为的反馈。信息支持回应主要由自助文献、临床治疗方法和同伴康复计划的推荐组成。结论：本样本中的社会支持主要是情绪性的，其他类型的支持包括提供反馈和指导(即评估支持)和补充恢复资源(即信息支持)。所提供的社会支持框架有助于描述不同在线AUD恢复支持论坛之间的社区动态。这一框架还可能有助于考虑与恢复进展相对应的支助办法的变化。
Background: Online social media communities are increasingly popular venues for discussing alcohol use disorder (AUD) and recovery. Little is known about distinct contexts of social support that are exchanged in this milieu, which are critical to understanding the social dynamics of online recovery support. Methods: We randomly selected one post per day over the span of a year from the StopDrinking recovery forum. Direct responses to posts were double coded within an established theoretical framework of social support. Within a mixed-methods research framework, we quantified the linguistic characteristics of 1386 responses (i.e., text length, complexity, and sentiment) and qualitatively explored themes within and among different types of social support. Results: Emotional support was most prevalent (74% of responses) and appeared as the sole form of support in 38% of responses. Emotionally supportive responses were significantly shorter, less complex, and more positively valenced than other support types. Appraisal support was also common in 55% of responses, while informational support was identified in only 17%. There was substantial overlap among support types, with 40% of responses including two or more types. Salient themes included the common use of community-specific acronyms in emotional support. Appraisal support conveyed feedback about attitudes and behaviors that are perceived as (un-) favorable for AUD recovery. Informational support responses were composed primarily of recommendations for self-help literature, clinical treatment approaches, and peer recovery programs. Conclusions: Social support in this sample was primarily emotional in nature, with other types of support included to provide feedback and guidance (i.e., appraisal support) and supplemental recovery resources (i.e., informational support). The provided social support framework can be helpful in characterizing community dynamics among heterogeneous online AUD recovery support forums. This framework could also be helpful in considering changes in support approaches that correspond to progress in recovery.