↓ Skip to main content

Mutual Help Groups for Mental Health Problems: A Review of Effectiveness Studies

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Community Psychology, August 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
146 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
Title
Mutual Help Groups for Mental Health Problems: A Review of Effectiveness Studies
Published in
American Journal of Community Psychology, August 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10464-008-9181-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nancy Pistrang, Chris Barker, Keith Humphreys

Abstract

This paper reviews empirical studies on whether participating in mutual help groups for people with mental health problems leads to improved psychological and social functioning. To be included, studies had to satisfy four sets of criteria, covering: (1) characteristics of the group, (2) target problems, (3) outcome measures, and (4) research design. The 12 studies meeting these criteria provide limited but promising evidence that mutual help groups benefit people with three types of problems: chronic mental illness, depression/anxiety, and bereavement. Seven studies reported positive changes for those attending support groups. The strongest findings come from two randomized trials showing that the outcomes of mutual help groups were equivalent to those of substantially more costly professional interventions. Five of the 12 studies found no differences in mental health outcomes between mutual help group members and non-members; no studies showed evidence of negative effects. There was no indication that mutual help groups were differentially effective for certain types of problems. The studies varied in terms of design quality and reporting of results. More high-quality outcome research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of mutual help groups across the spectrum of mental health problems.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 204 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 19%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 36 17%
Unknown 31 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 87 41%
Social Sciences 34 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Computer Science 6 3%
Other 18 8%
Unknown 30 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2021.
All research outputs
#3,168,075
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Community Psychology
#165
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,042
of 100,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Community Psychology
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 100,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.