Can helplines survive our growing fear of the phone call?
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
It just turns out that phone calls have a new niche. Other forms of communication are used when their advantages outweigh a phone call...which isn't hard.
Phone calls are really only needed when there is a need for synchronous, immediate, communication that requires a high fidelity and require the bulk of each party's attention.
Urgent, important help where the problem and possible solutions are not clearly defined qualify. But anything less than that can likely be handled over some sort of textual, asynchronous interface. And beyond just being more convenient, they also offer their own advantages like archivability and searchability.
But when you're talking about mostly kids who are mentally in a fragile place, it's a context that is important.
Generally speaking, there's a continuum of intimacy or engagement ranging from a physical presence at various levels to high latency written communication like a letter or postcard. It's always better to do complex interactions in person, but a less expressive medium is going to be superior to nothing.
Helplines for anxiety-related issues will diminish more than others. When putting the phone to one's ear is itself a source of anxiety, people will definitely seek out and use other options for getting help that present less friction for them.
I have personally hated phone conversations since long before it was possible to avoid them entirely. I'm glad I don't have to suffer through them as much now. It isn't really fear. I just feel like they are a colossal waste of time. Few people write up a script, agenda, or talking points for their calls. Most just wing it. And they end up meandering, babbling, or inserting priority-retaining nulls, made all the worse by having no physical cues from the other person. Holding the phone up to one's ear also precludes the use of that hand for any other purpose. And the synchronous nature of the call sometimes means that I don't have time to formulate a concise topical response without the other person breaking in with "are you still there?" so I also have to babble or insert PRNs as a means of conveying "please wait while I assemble an answer to your question." But for a long time, it was the only tool in the toolbox for fast communication, so people had to use it when other means that would have been more appropriate had not been invented yet, or not yet reached a critical level of adoption.
Now that legacy can be retired. And good riddance.
Online community message boards where people with the same problems support one another--moderated by professionals to control spam and abuse--are likely to grow, in my opinion. These will likely have mobile companion apps to simplify interaction through small screens.
Yes, that's what reddit does.
> --moderated by professionals to control spam and abuse--are likely to grow, in my opinion. These will likely have mobile companion apps to simplify interaction through small screens.
Nope. Two things wrong with that.
1. Moderation won't and will not pay. People don't value paying for that. Advertisements put a question in conflicts of interest. Professionals require payment to survive.
2. Mobile companion apps: In general mobile apps are terrible due to physical limitations. They limit conversation and kill the context of what's going on. Also, again improvements to the apps cost money to develop and research.
Is there not a similar value proposition in having someone around to keep "You should kill yourself" messages off the suicide prevention message board, along with the scams and sales pitches?
Instead of paying someone to answer the phone at 1-800-DONT-DIE, you pay the same amount to moderate suicideprevention.org/board . Don't know where you got the idea of it being ad-supported, but you are correct that it's a horrible idea.
Not everyone is going to be in front of a full-sized computer in the middle of a crisis, but they are likely to have a phone. You at least need to have a mobile-friendly web interface for your support resources.
I'm not sure you can make that a blanket statement.
It's entirely possible to multi-task with a phone in your ear, especially with headphones, and it's also possible to focus completely on a series of text messages. You might be able to say that videoconferencing is necessarily higher-quality attention, but I wouldn't put chicanery past some organizations.