Tracking online searches for emotional wellbeing concerns and coping strategies in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a Google Trends analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the largest acute public health emergency of this century. Government intervention to contain the virus focuses on non-pharmacological approaches such as physical distancing/lockdown (stay-at-home orders). As the situation develops, the impact of these measures on mental health and coping strategies in individuals and the population is unknown. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> We used Google Trends data (01 Jan 2020 to 09 Jun 2020) to explore the changing pattern of public concern in the UK to government measures as indexed by changes in search frequency for topics related to mental distress as well as coping and resilience. We explored the changes of specific topics in relation to key dates during the pandemic. In addition, we examined terms whose search frequency increased most. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> Following lockdown, public concerns - as indexed by relative search trends - were directly related to COVID-19 and practicalities such as ‘furlough’ (paid leave scheme for people in employment) in response to the pandemic. Over time, searches with the most substantial growth were no longer directly or indirectly related to COVID-19. In contrast to relatively stable rates of searches related to mental distress, the topics that demonstrated a sustained increase were those associated with coping and resilience such as exercise and learning new skills. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> Google Trends is an expansive dataset which enables the investigation of population-level search activity as a proxy for public concerns. It has potential to enable policy makers to respond in real time to promote adaptive behaviours and deliver appropriate support. </ns4:p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".