Third Study! 7 Cups as Support for People with Schizophrenia-Spectrum Disorders
Our third study was just published on the adaptation of 7 Cups as an adjunct to treatment for people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our listeners did an excellent job of going through additional training and providing more support for the patients seeking help through this study. It goes to show that we can generalize this extra training for a variety of struggles that people face. You can read the full article here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214782915300282.
I'll highlight one part of it that I thought captured it:
One theme described by eight participants related to the benefit of being able to find an outlet and receive an immediate response in a moment of need (Because life happens and you are stressed out at the moment you can't talk to your counselor because it's on a scheduled appointment basis). Another theme described by seven participants related to answering a need to socialize and extend the support they receive (Isolating is a big thing for me, not good for my disorder. Having someone … can be very helpful to me and other people.; I would use it because now with my disability my friends are married have kids, I'm looking for people to communicate with and it can be helpful in socializing).
We want everyone to be able to reach out and get support. That is what makes 7 Cups magical. A big thank you again to all of the listeners that participated and once again a big shout out to @Heather for working so closely with the researchers at Zucker Hillside!
@GlenM I'm looking forward to reading the full article Glen. 
@Harry53, thanks! We are getting there :)
Wow, I was amazed to read in the Abstract that "additional training significantly increased listeners' knowledge and confidence (0.38 < = Cohen's d < = 1.14, p < = .024)" and for a group of "participants' ages ranged between 19 and 42 (M = 28.25, SD = 8.31)".
I don't mean to be all showboat-y but these numbers seem a little hard to understand for the non-mathematicians in the room so I'll try to break down what these figures mean so that everyone can easily understand what they represent and view the results of this study in a basic quantitative format:
If you scroll down to Table 2 of the study, assuming the standard n=6 supersymmetric is parametric to the Yang-Mills theory, the conformal symmetry constrains multi-loop n-edged Wilson loops to be given in terms of the one-loop n-edged Wilson loop, augmented, for values of n greater than 6, by a function of conformally invariant cross ratios. That function is termed the remainder function. The remainder function is given as a function of uniform transcendental weight four in terms of Goncharov polylogarithms. We consider also some asymptotic values of the remainder function, and the value when all the cross ratios percentages are equal. The SD = 8.31 stands for Standard Deviation which means the value is plus or minus deviated from the Mean (M). So now, if we go to Table 3 and substitute n=15 instead of n=6 which we did in Table 2, using the above described one-loop n-edged Wilson loop, we can determine that the remainder function is in fact (alpha)x(pi)^4 + (7.563)x(9.988)/e^5(pi), where 7.563 is the result of the polylogarithm to 3 decimal places. This means that Cohen's value of d is in fact between 0.38 and 1.14 when being proportionally compared to the values of M = 28.25, which allows us to come to a conclusion.
We, the general public should now be able to understand what the numerical values in this study represent based on my simplified explanation above. Therefore, we can come to the conclusion that the listener training does indeed need to be improved for schizophrenia support (and in general). Those above calculations took me a long time to formulate, but it's ok, I was happy to do them for you <3 No need to thank me for making your lives easier, you're already welcome :)
P.S. Glen, I'll get around to scheduling that call with you after my interview on Wednesday whenever you got some spare time <3
@OrunLeon, woah! didn't know you were a stats person :). Thanks for the analysis!
No problem, babes ;)
Given the apparent success of the training, will that training become available to all listeners? Are there lessons we can take from it to use more broadly and across other topics to lift the quality and level of knowledge overall?
@Anomalia, it is currently available under the schizophernia guide.
Also, regarding outcomes in psychotherapy, there is an entire field of research around this called integration. The basic idea is that basic therapeutic alliance/active listening is very helpful across challenges (the most curative part of therapy and what we measured in our first study) However, there are specfic intervention that are especially helpful for specific disorders. For example, active listening can really help a person suffering from OCD. However, active listening + response prevention interventions would help that person even more.
@GlenM - Makes sense. I must have misread - I thought the training was above what we had in our current training guide. Glad to hear it's available to all listeners!
I skimmed and read most of the article, and I'm really happy that people found solace here; like, that makes me really happy. Though, as someone who was asked to take part in this study but subsequently didn't, I have a few things to mention.
1. The qualifications for a listener to be involved in this study went as follows: they had to be a quality listener (the parameters for this were not defined), and they had to have completed the schizophrenia guide here on 7Cups. Since there were these qualifications set into place, those with schizophrenia, or other non-specified disorders, were not exposed to 7Cups as a random member; their listeners were either quality or had some training involved with schizophrenia. That's not to say this is a bad thing, but I am curious how the study would have gone if those psychoanalysts would have just let the participants submit a general request. I have a feeling that the numbers would be a lot lower, not because I'm a skeptic by nature, but because I've tried using this site as a member on numerous occasions.
This says a couple of things to me:
1. 7Cups is represented by the quality listeners and not the listeners as a whole; if there was faith in all involved, there would have been the email sent out to all, I am assuming. So surely when studies are done, they put their best foot forth. This is totally okay! I would do the same thing; it makes the most sense to put the most revered and respected community leaders, mentors and listeners at the forefront of a study. This isn't a bad thing, let me reiterate that. It just isn't a fair sample of listeners to choose from, and I feel like it may have construed the data in a certain way.
2. If we are going to put certain listeners at the forefront of things like this, let's do more training for them. We could have people who are certified to speak about each topic, people who pretty much become a verified listener for each topic. That way, if a study comes along or someone wants to speak with someone who knows a lot about schizophrenia, for example, we could lead them in the direction of those most fit to speak about it. We need more training - it needs to be harder, less repetitive. We need to train more listeners that could be at the forefront of these future studies. I hope future studies can be done with the entire listener population, instead of select few.
If any of this didn't make sense, I encourage questions!
@Cadence, see above comment to Anomalia. Also, the original study we did (on our research page) did not include any additional training for listeners. That was the one where we used the same scale to measure therapeutic alliance that is regularly used in psychotherapy outcome studies. Our listeners - with no additional training and randomly chosen - did remarkable. I'm really proud of that study :)
@GlenM
In all due respect, that didn't answer anything I had brought up. I wasn't saying that the training wasn't available to all listeners - I was saying that the qualifications (being a quality listener and having that guide done) are parameters set that don't necessarily reflect the community as a whole. This tells me that 10 members found solace in the top listeners on the site.
I'm glad you're proud - this site is your baby, and you wanna see it grow and stuff. I get that, really. Medical studies are exciting!
But, if they're important, please make sure a couple of things are done (going along with the brilliant @SandyM 's post.):
1. Larger sample size for participants.
2. Longer time span for the experiment.
3. Make it a simple random sample with listeners, so it is representative of the community as a whole.
And other stuff that make up ethical journals and experiments, ya know?
@Cadence Cheers for the support
@Cadence, I was referencing the original study that you can find on our research page. It was a large sample and matched people up with random listeners. If you haven't read it yet, please check it out. I think you'll be proud too :). Our listeners do a remarkable job.
Also, this research is done by researchers at leading healthcare institutions, is very ethical, and highly regarded :). Zucker HIllside, North Shore-LIJ is one of the largest healthcare systems in the US. Dr. Baumel is a leading technology researcher. Are you reading something in the studies that suggests they are unethical to you?
@GlenM
It's not unethical because of the content; I bet it was done really professionally.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. :D
@Cadence is there a part that you think is unethical? You can share here or pm me. Trying to better understand your perspective.
@GlenM Incredible
So the Schizophrenia Research is finished? Or it will continue? I understood there were only a few participants and I'm quite surprised you already have a result to be published. I'll surely make time to read it all. Thanks @GlenM @Heather
Thanks @ Glen
I'm interested in becoming apart of studies on 7 cups, do you know I can? excellent job on the third study as well!
@GlenM Excellent work everyone!!! Glad we can help those who need it :)
@GlenM
Great to read the abstract Glen! Congratulations to the entire team!
@OrunLeon, thank you for your explanation!
