ArticleJMIR diabetes2026
Exploring the REACHOUT Mental Health Support App for Type 1 Diabetes From the Perspectives of Recipients and Providers of Peer Support: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR diabetes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Existing qualitative research in peer support interventions has largely focused on the recipients of support rather than those delivering support. Exploring the perspectives of both roles may provide a holistic understanding of the peer support experience. Objective: This study elicits the experiences of recipients and providers of support who participated in REACHOUT, a 6-month peer-led mental health support intervention delivered via mobile app for adults with type 1 diabetes. REACHOUT offered multiple support delivery modalities (one-on-one, group-based texting, and virtual face-to-face small group sessions) that could be customized by recipients. Methods: A total of 32 study participants (recipients and peer supporters) attended focus group discussions following the completion of REACHOUT. Thematic analysis was performed in an inductive approach. Results: Four major themes were identified by thematic analysis: (1) need for a sense of community and belonging, (2) factors to enhance the recipient-peer supporter experience, (3) key aspects of the peer supporter experience, and (4) importance of personalizing the user experience while using the REACHOUT mobile app. REACHOUT successfully fostered connectedness by bringing together adults with type 1 diabetes who previously felt isolated. Recipients felt greater agency when given the opportunity to self-select a peer supporter. The main factors considered during the matching process included insulin delivery and glucose monitoring systems, duration of diabetes, shared hobbies, life stage, and age. While support was designed to be unidirectional from peer supporter to recipient, the former also derived benefits. Peer supporters expressed the need for greater guidance around navigating boundaries and responding to emotionally charged conversations. Finally, the REACHOUT app was able to accommodate a heterogeneity of support needs by offering one-on-one and group support across multiple communication platforms including text, audio, and video. Conclusions: The success of peer-led mental health support interventions such as REACHOUT is likely associated with the recipient-peer supporter dynamic. By offering a range of support delivery and communication modalities, participants can better personalize solutions to meet their unique support needs. Understanding the perspectives of both recipients and peer supporters is essential to refining interventions and optimizing digitally delivered mental health support models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.