Search

BackgroundIn recent years, social media has become a rich source of mental health data. However, there is a lack of web-based research on the accuracy and validity of self-reported diagnostic information available on the web. ObjectiveAn analysis of the degree of correspondence between self-reported diagnoses and clinical indicators will afford researchers and clinicians higher levels of trust in social media analyses. We hypothesized that self-reported diagnoses would correspond to validated disorder-specific severity questionnaires across 2 large web-based samples. MethodsThe participants of study 1 were 1123 adults from a national Qualtrics panel (mean age 34.65, SD 12.56 years; n=635, 56.65% female participants,). The participants of study 2 were 2237 college students from a large university in the Midwest (mean age 19.08, SD 2.75 years; n=1761, 75.35% female participants). All participants completed a web-based survey on their mental health, social media use, and demographic information. Additionally, the participants reported whether they had ever been diagnosed with a series of disorders, with the option of selecting “Yes”; “No, but I should be”; “I don’t know”; or “No” for each condition. We conducted a series of ANOVA tests to determine whether there were differences among the 4 diagnostic groups and used post hoc Tukey tests to examine the nature of the differences. ResultsIn study 1, for self-reported mania (F3,1097=2.75; P=.04), somatic symptom disorder (F3,1060=26.75; P

BackgroundInternalizing, externalizing, and somatoform disorders are the most common and disabling forms of psychopathology. Our understanding of these clinical problems is limited by a reliance on self-report along with research using small samples. Social media has emerged as an exciting channel for collecting a large sample of longitudinal data from individuals to study psychopathology. ObjectiveThis study reported the results of 2 large ongoing studies in which we collected data from Twitter and self-reported clinical screening scales, the Studies of Online Cohorts for Internalizing Symptoms and Language (SOCIAL) I and II. MethodsThe participants were a sample of Twitter-using adults (SOCIAL I: N=1123) targeted to be nationally representative in terms of age, sex assigned at birth, race, and ethnicity, as well as a sample of college students in the Midwest (SOCIAL II: N=1988), of which 61.78% (1228/1988) were Twitter users. For all participants who were Twitter users, we asked for access to their Twitter handle, which we analyzed using Botometer, which rates the likelihood of an account belonging to a bot. We divided participants into 4 groups: Twitter users who did not give us their handle or gave us invalid handles (invalid), those who denied being Twitter users (no Twitter, only available for SOCIAL II), Twitter users who gave their handles but whose accounts had high bot scores (bot-like), and Twitter users who provided their handles and had low bot scores (valid). We explored whether there were significant differences among these groups in terms of their sociodemographic features, clinical symptoms, and aspects of social media use (ie, platforms used and time). ResultsIn SOCIAL I, most individuals were classified as valid (580/1123, 51.65%), and a few were deemed bot-like (190/1123, 16.91%). A total of 31.43% (353/1123) gave no handle or gave an invalid handle (eg, entered “N/A”). In SOCIAL II, many individuals were not Twitter users (760/1988, 38.23%). Of the Twitter users in SOCIAL II (1228/1988, 61.78%), most were classified as either invalid (515/1228, 41.94%) or valid (484/1228, 39.41%), with a smaller fraction deemed bot-like (229/1228, 18.65%). Participants reported high rates of mental health diagnoses as well as high levels of symptoms, especially in SOCIAL II. In general, the differences between individuals who provided or did not provide their social media handles were small and not statistically significant. ConclusionsTriangulating passively acquired social media data and self-reported questionnaires offers new possibilities for large-scale assessment and evaluation of vulnerability to mental disorders. The propensity of participants to share social media handles is likely not a source of sample bias in subsequent social media analytics.