MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4409148784 · doi:10.2196/68483

Mental Health and Coping Strategies of Health Communicators Who Faced Online Abuse During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4409148784 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lisa Wight, Chris Tenove, Saima Hirani, Heidi Tworek

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Infodemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiquePublic Relations and Crisis Communication
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMental healthPsychologyCoping (psychology)Psychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts used social media platforms to share information and advocate for policies. Many of them faced online abuse, which some reported took a toll on their mental health and well-being. Variation in the impacts of online abuse on mental health, well-being, and professional efficacy suggest that health communicators may differ in their coping strategies and ultimately their resilience to such abuse. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the impacts of online abuse on health communicators' mental health and well-being as well as their emotion- and problem-focused coping strategies. METHODS: We recruited health communicators (public health officials, medical practitioners, and university-based researchers) in Canada who engaged in professional online communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. In phase 1, semistructured interviews were conducted with 35 health communicators. In phase 2, online questionnaires were completed by 34 individuals before participating in workshops. Purposive recruitment resulted in significant inclusion of those who self-identified as racialized or women. Interview and workshop data were subjected to inductive and deductive coding techniques to generate themes. Descriptive statistics were calculated for selected questionnaire questions. RESULTS: In total, 94% (33/35) of interviewees and 82% (28/34) of questionnaire respondents reported experiencing online abuse during the study period (2020-2022). Most health communicators mentioned facing an emotional and psychological toll, including symptoms of depression and anxiety. Racialized and women health communicators faced abuse that emphasized their ethnicity, gender identity, and physical appearance. Health communicators' most common emotion-focused coping strategies were withdrawing from social media platforms, avoiding social media platforms altogether, and accepting online abuse as unavoidable. Common problem-focused coping strategies included blocking or unfriending hostile accounts, changing online behavior, formal help-seeking, and seeking peer support. Due to the impacts of online abuse on participants' mental health and well-being, 41% (14/34) of the questionnaire respondents seriously contemplated quitting health communication, while 53% (18/34) reduced or suspended their online presence. Our findings suggest that health communicators who used problem-focused coping strategies were more likely to remain active online, demonstrating significant professional resilience. CONCLUSIONS: Although health communicators in our study implemented various emotion- and problem-focused coping strategies, they still faced challenges in dealing with the impacts of online abuse. Our findings reveal the limitations of individual coping strategies, suggesting the need for effective formal organizational policies to support those who receive online abuse and to sanction those who perpetrate it. Organizational policies could improve long-term outcomes for health communicators' mental health and well-being by mitigating online abuse and supporting its targets. Such policies would bolster professional resilience, ensuring that important health information can still reach the public and is not silenced by online abuse. More research is needed to determine whether gender, race, or other factors shape coping strategies and their effectiveness.

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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,347
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,126
Tête enseignante GPT0,540
Écart entre enseignants0,414 · 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'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations4
Publié2025
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR InfodemiologyMême sujetPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationTravaux en français237 207