Research Research About Myptsd

[BlueOrange]

Is anyone aware of any formal studies into myptsd.com as a therapeutic intervention? (That is to say, a controlled study into whether this website helps people.) I'm aware that those of us who continue to be active have positive opinions, but am curious as to whether there's scientific recognition of the merits of this site.

 

[Friday]

This site, specifically? Or Peer-to-Peer?

 

[BlueOrange]

Ideally, specific to this site - I've recommended it in an professional context, and been asked for evidence.

Evidence for peer-to-peer is also worth having, but please don't make an effort to find stuff you don't already know about.

 

[EveHarrington]

People are asking you for evidence that this site is actually helpful?

Ok------please don't take offense.

I kind of get annoyed that the medical world (on whole) needs "proof" that something works in order to trust in it. I see this in new medical/therapeutic interventions, supplements, and so on. But the problem with this is that there must be some financial benefit for many studies to get off the ground. Something left unproven doesn't mean it's bunk, rather there may be no financial gain in the outcome.

Why do these people who are asking you------well why do they need proof?

I'm not sure how you'd even create a scientific study. I mean in order for it to be valid you'd have to have many participants including a control group who doesn't even look at this site.

I think that perhaps it would be best to fall back on the widely accepted notion that socializing is indeed good for sufferers and this is a form of socialization.

 

[Suzetig]

I'm not sure I agree, this site serves many different functions, socialisation is certainly one but peer support, psychoeducation and some degree of exposure therapy are all possible and present here too. There may be varied benefits for people being involved here and exploring that in some way doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be financially viable to have merit.

Random controlled trials are just one form of research, but focussed case studies or other qualitative means are valid too. I can think of a number of areas of research on aspects of this site that would have merit in the wider community.

 

[Gs172003]

I don't like the whole " It has to be a controlled study for me to believe it" thing either. When you have thousands of peoole, heck even hundreds being helped by one thing, does it really matter why?

 

[BlueOrange]

I can understand the frustration.

There is some really good government-funded and charity-funded research that gets done into community interventions, including websites.

When you have hundreds, or even thousands of people being helped by a thing, then there should be some evidence that they were helped. It looks as if nobody has done the work to collect and sort through that evidence. That's OK, but I don't think it would be harmful if somebody did do that work.

 

[Friday]

Evidence for peer-to-peer is also worth having, but please don't make an effort to find stuff you don't already know about.

For the type, just look up AA / Vietnam Rap Sessions / etc. There's been a whole lot of both anecdotal and academic look-see into why peer to peer & critical peer discussion is both effective and helpful in both the short and long term for both the individual and the field. It's very little different than why getting groups of scientists, engineers, artists, etc., together tends to be inordinately helpful in both the short and long term for both the individual and the field. The more heads the better.

Both common sense & self selecting groups are notoriously difficult to quantify, however.

Is it easy to see why The Royal Society, The Left Bank, & AA (as well as thousands of other peer to peer examples) are & were so rabidly successful. You get like minded folk together and shazaam! They accomplish great things. On both the individual and group level. Attempts to study & or replicate the synergistic effect of such gatherings? Falls flat. Time & Again. In fact, it's far more easy to prove that they don't work -against all evidence to the contrary- than that they do. Shrug.

 

[BlueOrange]

AA seems like an example worth following. This review of research into AA Alcoholics Anonymous Effectiveness: Faith Meets Science states that there's good evidence to show that people who attend AA are better off, while conceding that experiments testing the question 'is AA the reason why they are better off' is less clear.

It seems to me that if research into myptsd were funded, that we could get evidence similar to the AA evidence; it'd be a good start.

 

[Friday]

It seems to me that if research into myptsd were funded, that we could get evidence similar to the AA evidence; it'd be a good start.

Good start for what?

As this is a privately owned and operated resource, not public, not a non-profit .org, etc. I would suggest you message the site's owners, rather than brainstorming with members how to make something happen they may well be opposed to? They might love it, they might hate it, no idea. But as we've moved out of the casual & theoretical and into site admin & operation? I would hit up @anthony before taking it any further.

I've recommended it in an professional context, and been asked for evidence.

Especially as ^^^ appears to be mixed up in it?

 

[Gs172003]

AA seems like an example worth following. This review of research into AA [URL="Link Removed...

I'm going to be the one to say "who CARES" which part helps, the people or AA? If it helps it helps

 

[Gs172003]

Not against you blue orange just saying.

If it works it works. I don't know why science has to try to debunk anything they don't think goes with their protocol