MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3110968339 · doi:10.2196/24618

Development of Social Support Networks by Patients With Depression Through Online Health Communities: Social Network Analysis

2020· article· en· W3110968339 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yingjie Lu, Shuwen Luo, Xuan Liu

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueMental Health via Writing
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesMinistry of Education, IndiaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
Mots-clésSocial supportReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Exponential random graph modelsSocial network (sociolinguistics)PsychologySocial network analysisMental healthSocial psychologyComputer sciencePsychiatrySocial mediaGraphRandom graphWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In recent years, people with mental health problems are increasingly using online social networks to receive social support. For example, in online depression communities, patients can share their experiences, exchange valuable information, and receive emotional support to help them cope with their disease. Therefore, it is critical to understand how patients with depression develop online social support networks to exchange informational and emotional support. OBJECTIVE: Our aim in this study was to investigate which user attributes have significant effects on the formation of informational and emotional support networks in online depression communities and to further examine whether there is an association between the two social networks. METHODS: We used social network theory and constructed exponential random graph models to help understand the informational and emotional support networks in online depression communities. A total of 74,986 original posts were retrieved from 1077 members in an online depression community in China from April 2003 to September 2017 and the available data were extracted. An informational support network of 1077 participant nodes and 6557 arcs and an emotional support network of 1077 participant nodes and 6430 arcs were constructed to examine the endogenous (purely structural) effects and exogenous (actor-relation) effects on each support network separately, as well as the cross-network effects between the two networks. RESULTS: We found significant effects of two important structural features, reciprocity and transitivity, on the formation of both the informational support network (r=3.6247, P<.001, and r=1.6232, P<.001, respectively) and the emotional support network (r=4.4111, P<.001, and r=0.0177, P<.001, respectively). The results also showed significant effects of some individual factors on the formation of the two networks. No significant effects of homophily were found for gender (r=0.0783, P=.20, and r=0.1122, P=.25, respectively) in the informational or emotional support networks. There was no tendency for users who had great influence (r=0.3253, P=.05) or wrote more posts (r=0.3896, P=.07) or newcomers (r=-0.0452, P=.66) to form informational support ties more easily. However, users who spent more time online (r=0.6680, P<.001) or provided more replies to other posts (r=0.5026, P<.001) were more likely to form informational support ties. Users who had a big influence (r=0.8325, P<.001), spent more time online (r=0.5839, P<.001), wrote more posts (r=2.4025, P<.001), or provided more replies to other posts (r=0.2259, P<.001) were more likely to form emotional support ties, and newcomers (r=-0.4224, P<.001) were less likely than old-timers to receive emotional support. In addition, we found that there was a significant entrainment effect (r=0.7834, P<.001) and a nonsignificant exchange effect (r=-0.2757, P=.32) between the two networks. CONCLUSIONS: This study makes several important theoretical contributions to the research on online depression communities and has important practical implications for the managers of online depression communities and the users involved in these communities.

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,219
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,385
Écart entre enseignants0,342 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations26
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Medical InformaticsMême sujetMental Health via WritingTravaux en français237 207