Is Google Trends a useful tool for tracking mental and social distress during a public health emergency? A time-series analysis.
Anxiety
Depression
Domestic violence
Loneliness
Mental Health
Pandemic
Suicide
Journal
Journal of affective disorders
ISSN: 1573-2517
Titre abrégé: J Affect Disord
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7906073
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2021
01 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
17
02
2021
revised:
26
06
2021
accepted:
30
06
2021
pubmed:
5
8
2021
medline:
3
9
2021
entrez:
4
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Google Trends data are increasingly used by researchers as an indicator of population mental health, but few studies have investigated the validity of this approach during a public health emergency. Relative search volumes (RSV) for the topics depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicide, suicidal ideation, loneliness, and abuse were obtained from Google Trends. We used graphical and time-series approaches to compare daily trends in searches for these topics against population measures of these outcomes recorded using validated self-report scales (PHQ-9; GAD-7; UCLA-3) in a weekly survey (n = ~70,000) of the impact COVID-19 on psychological and social experiences in the UK population (21/03/2020 to 21/08/ 2020). Self-reported levels of depression, anxiety, self-harm/suicidal ideation, self-harm, loneliness and abuse decreased during the period studied. There was no evidence of an association between self-reported anxiety, self-harm, abuse and RSV on Google Trends. Trends in Google topic RSV for depression and suicidal ideation were inversely associated with self-reports of these outcomes (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). However, there was statistical and graphical evidence that self-report and Google searches for loneliness (p < 0.001) tracked one another. No age/sex breakdown of Google Trends data available. Survey respondents were not representative of the UK population and no pre-pandemic data were available. Google Trends data do not appear to be a useful indicator of changing levels of population mental health during a public health emergency, but may have some value as an indicator of loneliness.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Google Trends data are increasingly used by researchers as an indicator of population mental health, but few studies have investigated the validity of this approach during a public health emergency.
METHODS
METHODS
Relative search volumes (RSV) for the topics depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicide, suicidal ideation, loneliness, and abuse were obtained from Google Trends. We used graphical and time-series approaches to compare daily trends in searches for these topics against population measures of these outcomes recorded using validated self-report scales (PHQ-9; GAD-7; UCLA-3) in a weekly survey (n = ~70,000) of the impact COVID-19 on psychological and social experiences in the UK population (21/03/2020 to 21/08/ 2020).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Self-reported levels of depression, anxiety, self-harm/suicidal ideation, self-harm, loneliness and abuse decreased during the period studied. There was no evidence of an association between self-reported anxiety, self-harm, abuse and RSV on Google Trends. Trends in Google topic RSV for depression and suicidal ideation were inversely associated with self-reports of these outcomes (p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). However, there was statistical and graphical evidence that self-report and Google searches for loneliness (p < 0.001) tracked one another.
LIMITATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
No age/sex breakdown of Google Trends data available. Survey respondents were not representative of the UK population and no pre-pandemic data were available.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Google Trends data do not appear to be a useful indicator of changing levels of population mental health during a public health emergency, but may have some value as an indicator of loneliness.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34348169
pii: S0165-0327(21)00674-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.06.086
pmc: PMC8411666
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
737-744Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 204813
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_PC_17211
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Références
Wellcome Open Res. 2020 Apr 30;5:82
pubmed: 32671230
PLoS One. 2017 Aug 16;12(8):e0183149
pubmed: 28813490
Brain Behav Immun. 2020 Jul;87:126-127
pubmed: 32360605
Crisis. 2018 Nov;39(6):469-478
pubmed: 29848080
BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 29;6(4):e010538
pubmed: 27130163
J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13
pubmed: 11556941
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Nov 15;49(10):1557-64
pubmed: 19845471
PLoS One. 2010 Oct 28;5(10):e13728
pubmed: 21060851
Arch Intern Med. 2006 May 22;166(10):1092-7
pubmed: 16717171
World Psychiatry. 2021 Feb;20(1):143-144
pubmed: 33432740
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 Dec;45(12):1020-2
pubmed: 22034830
Health Policy. 2019 Mar;123(3):338-341
pubmed: 30660346
Int Psychogeriatr. 2020 Oct;32(10):1251-1252
pubmed: 32487275
J Affect Disord. 2010 May;122(3):277-9
pubmed: 19748681
PLoS One. 2018 May 24;13(5):e0197712
pubmed: 29795637
J Affect Disord. 2012 Dec 15;142(1-3):323-30
pubmed: 22835843
J Health Econ. 2011 Mar;30(2):258-64
pubmed: 21349596
Psychol Trauma. 2020 Sep;12(6):567-568
pubmed: 32790441
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2011 Jun;65(4):392-4
pubmed: 21569178
J Pers Assess. 1996 Feb;66(1):20-40
pubmed: 8576833
Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2018 Sep;21(9):569-574
pubmed: 30212247
Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 Feb;8(2):141-149
pubmed: 33308420
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Sep 02;16(17):
pubmed: 31480718
F1000Res. 2020 Sep 4;9:1097
pubmed: 33604025
Br J Psychiatry. 2020 Oct;217(4):543-546
pubmed: 32654678
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jan 4;4(1):e2034261
pubmed: 33475749
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 22;9(10):e109583
pubmed: 25337815
Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2013 Dec 13;7:1-8
pubmed: 24376364
Crisis. 2015;36(5):325-31
pubmed: 26502782
Can J Psychiatry. 2020 Oct;65(10):741-743
pubmed: 32524848