Can Facebook Reduce Perceived Anxiety Among College Students? Randomized Controlled Exercise Trial Using the Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest social media may be an attractive strategy to promote mental health and wellness. There remains a need to examine the utility for individually tailored wellness messages posted to social media sites such as Facebook to facilitate positive psychological outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to extend the growing body of evidence supporting the potential for social media to enhance mental health. We evaluated the influence of an 8-week social media intervention on anxiety in college students and examined the impact of dynamic (active) versus static (passive) Facebook content on physical activity behaviors. METHODS: Participants in the static group (n=21) accessed a Facebook page featuring 96 statuses. Statuses were intended to engage cognitive processes followed by behavioral processes of change per the transtheoretical model of behavior change. Content posted on the static Facebook page was identical to the dynamic page; however, the static group viewed all 96 statuses on the first day of the study, while the dynamic group received only 1 to 2 of these status updates per day throughout the intervention. Anxiety was measured using the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS). Time spent engaging in physical activity was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). RESULTS: The OASIS change score for the dynamic Facebook group was statistically significant (P=.003), whereas the change score for the static group was not (P=.48). A statistically significant group-by-time interaction was observed (P=.03). The total IPAQ group-by-time interaction was not statistically significant (P=.06). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a decrease in anxiety and increase in total physical activity for the dynamic group only. Dynamic social networking sites, featuring regularly updated content, may be more advantageous than websites that retain static content over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03363737; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03363737 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6vXzNbOWJ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".