What Media Helps, What Media Hurts: A Mixed Methods Survey Study of Coping with COVID-19 Using the Media Repertoire Framework and the Appraisal Theory of Stress
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Social and physical distancing in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has made screen-mediated information and communication technologies (media) indispensable. Whether an increase in screen use is a source of or a relief for stress remains to be seen. Objective In the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 lockdowns, we investigated the relation between subjective stress and changes in the pattern of media use. Based on Lazarus’s transactional model of appraisal and coping, and building on an earlier similar survey, we hypothesize that individual differences in the appraisal of media predict variations in approach or avoidance of media for coping with COVID-19 stress. Methods Between March 20 and April 20, 2020, a brief snowball survey entitled: “What media helps, what media hurts: coping with COVID19 through screens” was distributed via Concordia University’s mailing lists and social media (PERFORM Centre, EngAGE Centre, and Media Health Lab). Using a media repertoire method, we asked questions about preferences, changes in use, and personal appraisal of media experiences (approach, avoid, and ignore) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and investigated interindividual differences in media use by factors such as subjective stress, age, gender, and self-reported mental health. Results More than 90% of the survey respondents were in Canada and the east coast of the United States. From 685 completed responses, 169 respondents were “very stressed” and 452 were “slightly worried” about the pandemic. COVID-19 stress led to increased use of Facebook (χ23=11.76, P=.008), television (χ23=12.40, P=.006), YouTube (χ23=8.577, P=.04), and streaming services such as Netflix (χ23=10.71, P=.01). Respondents who considered their mental health “not good” were twice as likely to prefer streaming services as a coping tool for self-isolation. Women and nonbinary respondents were twice as likely than men to pick social media for coping. Individuals younger than 35 years were 3 times more likely to pick computer games, and individuals older than 55 years were more likely to pick network television or print media. Gender affected the appraisal of media (less in men than others) in terms of avoid (F1,637=5.84, P=.02) and approach scores (F1,637=14.31, P<.001). Subjective mental health affected the ignore score (less in those who said “good” than others; F1,637=13.88, P<.001). The appraisal score and use increase explained variations in worrying about physical and mental health stress due to increased screen time. A qualitative analysis of open-ended questions revealed that media (especially social networks) were important for coping if they provided support and connection through the dissemination of factual and positive information while avoiding the overflow of sensational and false news. Conclusions The relationship between appraisal of media’s positive and negative facets vary with demographic differences in mental health resiliency. The media repertoire approach is an important tool in studies that focus on assessing the benefits and harms of screen overuse in different populations, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,041 | 0,063 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle