Quantifying Changes in the Language Used Around Mental Health on Twitter Over 10 Years: Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health challenges are thought to affect approximately 10% of the global population each year, with many of those affected going untreated because of the stigma and limited access to services. As social media lowers the barrier for joining difficult conversations and finding supportive groups, Twitter is an open source of language data describing the changing experience of a stigmatized group. OBJECTIVE: By measuring changes in the conversation around mental health on Twitter, we aim to quantify the hypothesized increase in discussions and awareness of the topic as well as the corresponding reduction in stigma around mental health. METHODS: We explored trends in words and phrases related to mental health through a collection of 1-, 2-, and 3-grams parsed from a data stream of approximately 10% of all English tweets from 2010 to 2021. We examined temporal dynamics of mental health language and measured levels of positivity of the messages. Finally, we used the ratio of original tweets to retweets to quantify the fraction of appearances of mental health language that was due to social amplification. RESULTS: We found that the popularity of the phrase mental health increased by nearly two orders of magnitude between 2012 and 2018. We observed that mentions of mental health spiked annually and reliably because of mental health awareness campaigns as well as unpredictably in response to mass shootings, celebrities dying by suicide, and popular fictional television stories portraying suicide. We found that the level of positivity of messages containing mental health, while stable through the growth period, has declined recently. Finally, we observed that since 2015, mentions of mental health have become increasingly due to retweets, suggesting that the stigma associated with the discussion of mental health on Twitter has diminished with time. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide useful texture regarding the growing conversation around mental health on Twitter and suggest that more awareness and acceptance has been brought to the topic compared with past years.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".