MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240687223 · doi:10.2196/30900

Exploring Use Patterns and Racial and Ethnic Differences in Real Time Affective States During Social Media Use Among a Clinical Sample of Adolescents With Depression: Prospective Cohort Study

2022· article· en· W4240687223 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cameron Nereim, David S. Bickham, Michael Rich

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMaternal and Child Health BureauHealth Resources and Services AdministrationBoston Children's Hospital
KeywordsEthnic groupAffect (linguistics)Mental healthDepression (economics)PsychologyMedicineDemographyClinical psychologyGerontologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Increasing youth mental health problems over time correlate with increasing rates of social media use (SMU); however, a proposed contributory relationship remains unproven. To better understand how SMU impacts mental health requires a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between different patterns of SMU and specific individual factors. Studies suggest that more active forms of SMU may offer mental health benefits when compared with more passive forms. Furthermore, the literature suggests important differences in patterns of SMU and affective states among those identifying as racial and ethnic minorities. Objective Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), this study aims to investigate potential differences in affective states during active and passive forms of SMU and whether such differences vary by race and ethnicity. Methods We recruited patients seeking care at a large urban adolescent medicine clinic who exhibited at least mild depressive symptoms based on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores. Participants completed an enrollment survey and a 7-day EMA protocol, receiving 5 EMA questionnaires per day, which assessed real time SMU behaviors and affective states using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule–Expanded form subscales. To correct for nonindependent data with EMA responses clustered within individuals, data were analyzed using mixed-effects modeling, allowing for a random intercept at the individual level to examine associations between EMA-reported SMU and affective states while adjusting results for age, gender, race and ethnicity, PHQ-9 score, and EMA response rate. Results A racially and ethnically diverse group of 55 adolescents aged 14 to 19 years provided a total of 976 EMA responses, averaging 17.76 (SD 8.76) responses per participant, with a response rate of 51.15%. Participants reported higher mean levels of negative affect during active SMU (F1,215=3.86; SE 0.05; t1,215=1.96; P=.05) and lower mean levels of positive affect during passive SMU (F1,369=3.90; SE 0.09; t1,369=–1.98; P=.049). However, within different racial and ethnic groups, higher levels of negative affect during moments of active SMU were seen only among Black non-Hispanic participants: F1,81=6.31; SE 0.05; t81=2.51; P=.01). Similarly, lower levels of positive affect during passive SMU were seen only among White non-Hispanic participants (F1,295=10.52; SE 0.13; t295=–3.24; P=.001). Conclusions Although in aggregate, adolescents with depressive symptoms experienced more negative affect during active SMU and less positive affect during passive SMU, these mean outcomes were driven solely by greater negative affect during active SMU by Black non-Hispanic participants and lower positive affect during passive SMU by White non-Hispanic participants. Differences in intentionality, content, context, and expectations of SMU among youths across racial and ethnic groups may result in different affective outcomes. Exploration of the interactions among cultural differences in SMU strategies and characteristics will be critical to furthering our understanding of the impact of SMU on youth mental health.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207