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!
I am sorry to say that I may very well be the one to say that I am not overly optimistic as the rest of you all seem to be. It's over genenralising to say that the training and service delievery that was given by 7Cups was remarkable.
1. The study does indicate that additional training was needed - adknowledged a weakness and a opportunity for growth
2. The participants are not new to the service than the general population bringing up the issue of bias. More in particular, response bais meaning that the participants are more inclined to give a favourable answer than a negative answer
3. The participants were not representative of the general population. They know the service and how it works therefore, it is familiar and they are more likely to engage more in something that they know how to use.
4. The participants in the study was 10. 10 is so low. Take for example, a study containing 100 people vs 10 people. The 100 people study is more valid.
I understand that we love this community and I understand the benefits that we have to people in need but to make sure big claims based on this study given its limitations is unethical
@SandyM, are you referring to claims in the article as being unethical? or claims in my intro post? I'm not all the way understanding you. Maybe you are referring to some of my above comments? Not sure. I was pointing others to the original study that you can find on our research page. The goals of that study were entirely different than the goals for this study.
@GlenM I am referring to this journal article (Third Study)
@GlenM@Candance
I had a look at the 2nd study and I am having the same or similiar issues with the 2nd study
1. The sample are referred by professionals and not of a general population with have not been given a referral and just searched for this service themselves
2.The samples have different criterion and therefore can't be bunched together
3. The sample of 9 is still low. So if you wish to combine the sample of the two studies it is 19. 19 is still so low. For example a quote from Approximately half of participants suggested that this service could complement treatment by providing support when the clinicians are not available, and the same proportion of participants indicated that this program might benefit them by providing an additional support person (Baumel & Schueller, 2016). So by this statement, 4 people supported this above statement.
4. The sample indicated that there were weakness of not having a regular listener, enough trained listeners and that there was issues with listeners age maturity. In addition of the sample, 5 said that wished there was someone with lived experience to help them indicating that if the listeners where "like them" they would be more comfortable
5. The automated and unconsumable training of listeners. There was no quality control of needing to be assessed before being allowed into the study as a listener
7. The limitations indicated by the paragraph above future directions on page 10
@SandyM, i think you are referring to the perinatal study. You are correct in that it is similar to the study referenced here. I was referring to the journal of mental health study. There was no additional training, no referrals from a specific source, and a much larger sample (in the hundreds). I'm really proud of all of these studies. The way to think about this one and the perinatal one is to look at them as foundational studies or pilots. You have to crawl before you can walk and then you have to walk before you can run. Still, even though we are crawling here, these two studies are still remarkable. Both of these populations get little support and experience a lot of suffering. These studies show how we can scale support and better help people struggling with these challenges. They are a definite step in the right direction. Tough, to me, to argue that they are unethical or unhelpful. I think these researchers and listeners are doing very good and much needed work.
@GlenM this is amazing! Thank u!
Good job to all congrats !!!
👍👍👍
I wonder what motivates listeners to criticize the findings or methods of the latest study. It's really puzzling. Do they have an ulterior motive?
It's really disappointing, Glen, to see you being put in the position of having to defend the study when we all know, or we should all know, how dedicated you are to making this site the best mental health site on the internet.
@Harry53 I think, in part, some of the reactions may be due to misunderstanding. I just responded above so hopefully that helps clear things up. I'm really proud of all involved. We are just getting started and we'll figure much out in the months to come!
Congrats to the 7 Cups Team for the article of the third study being published! It's great to see the progress here acknowledged by an outside source! :)
@GlenM Thank you so much! I have schizoaffective disorder and this sounds amazing.
@theblackcrown thank you! :)
I have a schizoid personality disorder, so yeah... Thank you for this!
Way to go !!!! 😊👍
