| Literature DB >> 19632979 |
Yoshimitsu Takahashi1, Chiyoko Uchida, Koichi Miyaki, Michi Sakai, Takuro Shimbo, Takeo Nakayama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Internet peer support groups for depression are becoming popular and could be affected by an increasing number of social network services (SNSs). However, little is known about participant characteristics, social relationships in SNSs, and the reasons for usage. In addition, the effects of SNS participation on people with depression are rather unknown.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19632979 PMCID: PMC2762850 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1142
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Screenshot of the SNS home page for people with depressive tendencies (Friends: online friends whose profiles are featured as links on one’s own profile. Communities: online communities for people with similar interests or activities. Messages: online messages, such as Web-based email. Information: displays information from the administrator. Invitation function: users who want to participate need an invitation from a participant for registration. Footprints function: participants can ascertain and access the history of another participant. Privacy controls function: participants can choose who can view their profile or contact them.)
Figure 2Flow diagram of subjects surveyed and analyzed: “Participants” were subjects of the SNS log file analysis; “Valid respondents” were subjects of the Internet questionnaire analysis; “Withdrew” refers to people who had deleted their accounts themselves; “Exclusion” refers to people who were excluded (one was the administrator, and two had registered within the week before collection of data from the SNS log files); “Respondents” were people who provided informed consent; “Valid respondents” were people who answered any item of the questionnaire; “Invalid respondents” were people who did not answer any item, although they provided informed consent. † is subjects of the SNS log file analysis. ‡ is subjects of the Internet questionnaire survey analysis.
Characteristics of participants (N = 105)
| na | Total | Response to the Questionnaire | ||||
| (N = 105) | Valid Respondents | Invalid/Nonrespondentsb | ||||
| Age in years, median (range) | 105 | 36 (21-57) | 37 (21-52) | 33 (22-57) | .09c | |
| Male, n (%) | 71 | 36 (51) | 16 (43) | 20 (59) | .24d | |
| Profile,e n (%) | 105 | 97 (92) | 34 (92) | 63 (93) | .99d | |
| Accessing the SNS,f n (%) | ||||||
| By personal computer | 102 | 47 (46) | 24 (67) | 23 (35) | .003d | |
| By cell phone | 102 | 6 (6) | 1 (3) | 5 (8) | .99d | |
| Updating blogs,f n (%) | 102 | 16 (16) | 11 (31) | 5 (8) | .02d | |
| Communities, median (range) | 105 | 3 (2-15) | 2 (2-12) | 3 (2-15) | .051c | |
| Friends, median (range) | 105 | 2 (0-42) | 7 (0-27) | 2 (0-42) | .008c | |
| Centrality, median (range) | ||||||
| Degree | 105 | 2 (0-42) | 7 (0-27) | 2 (0-42) | .008c | |
| Closeness | 105 | 2011 (1925-2177) | 1992 (1948-2177) | 2011 (1925-2095) | .02c | |
| Betweenness | 105 | 1.1 (0-1718) | 27.2 (0-960) | 0 (0-1718) | .002c | |
a Several items included missing data.
b Invalid respondents (N = 3); nonrespondents (N = 65).
c Mann-Whitney test.
d Fisher exact test.
e Number of people who had written their profile.
f Three times or more per week.
Characteristics and outcomes of valid respondents (N = 37)
| na | Total | Assessment of the SNSb | ||||||
| (N = 37) | Positive | Not Positive | No Assessment | |||||
| Age, median (range) | 37 | 37 (21-52) | 37 (26-51) | 32 (21-52) | 44.5 (40-49) | .30d | ||
| Male, n (%) | 37 | 16 (43) | 8 (42) | 7 (44) | 1 (50) | .99e | ||
| Internet use (per week), n | 35 | |||||||
| 40+ hours | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | .66f | |||
| 10-39 hours | 19 | 8 | 9 | 2 | ||||
| ≤ 9 hours | 13 | 8 | 5 | 0 | ||||
| Not working, no (%) | 34 | 16 (47) | 11 (58) | 5 (33) | 0 (0) | .19e | ||
| Living alone, n (%) | 17 | 5 (29) | 2 (18) | 3 (50) | 0 (0) | .28e | ||
| Diagnosis, n (%) | 35 | 32 (91) | 19 (100) | 12 (80) | 1 (100) | .08e | ||
| Medication, n (%) | 37 | 27 (73) | 17 (89) | 10 (63) | 0 (0) | .11e | ||
| Profile,g n (%) | 37 | 34 (92) | 17 (89) | 15 (94) | 2 (100) | .99e | ||
| Accessing the SNS,h n (%) | ||||||||
| By personal computer | 36 | 24 (67) | 16 (89) | 8 (50) | 0 (0) | .02e | ||
| By cell phone | 36 | 1 (3) | 1 (6) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | .99e | ||
| Updating blogs,h n (%) | 36 | 11 (31) | 6 (33) | 5 (31) | 0 (0) | .99e | ||
| Communities, median (range) | 37 | 2 (2-12) | 2 (2-12) | 2 (2-6) | 3 (2-4) | .71d | ||
| Friends, median (range) | 37 | 7 (0-27) | 8 (1-21) | 2 (0-27) | 2 (1-3) | .01d | ||
| Centrality, median (range) | ||||||||
| Degree | 37 | 7 (0-27) | 8 (1-21) | 2 (0-27) | 2 (1-3) | .01d | ||
| Closeness | 37 | 1992 (1948-2177) | 1977 (1951-2177) | 2008 (1948-2034) | 2056 (2034-2078) | .03d | ||
| Betweenness | 37 | 27 (0-960) | 74 (0-459) | 3 (0-960) | 0 (0-0) | .02d | ||
| Depressive state,i mean ± SD | 31 | 50.9 ± 9.7 | 52.8 ± 8.7 | 50.4 ± 9.0 | 38.5 ± 19.1 | .47j | ||
| Not depressed, n | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | .29f | |||
| Mildly depressed, n | 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| Moderately depressed, n | 12 | 5 | 6 | 1 | ||||
| Severely depressed, n | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | ||||
| Mood state,k mean ± SD | ||||||||
| (A) During normal time | 31 | 5.6 ± 2.3 | 6.2 ± 2.1 | 5.5 ± 2.1 | 1.5 ± 2.1 | .41j | ||
| (B) While using the Internet | 31 | 4.9 ± 2.4 | 5.6 ± 2.2 | 4.7 ± 2.3 | 1.5 ± 2.1 | .31j | ||
| (C) While using the SNS | 31 | 5.1 ± 2.0 | 5.0 ± 2.0 | 5.6 ± 1.6 | 2.0 ± 2.8 | .37j | ||
| Difference (B) − (A) | 31 | −0.7 ± 2.0 | −0.6 ± 2.3 | −0.8 ± 1.9 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | .78j | ||
| Difference (C) − (A) | 31 | −0.5 ± 1.9 | −1.2 ± 2.3 | 0.1 ± 1.2 | 0.5 ± 0.7 | .07j | ||
a Several items included missing data.
b Assessment of the SNS was evaluated by the question “Do you feel your sense of illness management for depression improved compared to before participating in the SNS?” Response choices were “much more,” “more,” “no change,” or “less.” “Much more” and “more” were classified as “positive assessment,” and the other responses were classified as “not positive assessment.”
c Comparing positive and not positive assessments of the SNS.
d Mann-Whitney test.
e Fisher exact test.
f Pearson chi-square test.
g Number of people who had written their profile.
h Three times or more per week.
i Depressive states were measured by the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale and were categorized as follows: not depressed (≤ 39), mildly depressed (40-47), moderately depressed (48-55), and severely depressed (≥ 56).
j Student t test.
k Mood states were measured by the numerical scale, which ranged from 0 (good mood) to 10 (bad mood).
Concepts and categories developed by qualitative content analysis (N = 30)
| Assessment of the SNS (N = 30)a | ||||
| Positive | Not Positive | No Assessment | ||
| <<Advantage conditions>> | ||||
| <Anonymousness> | 54 | 30, 114 | ||
| <Easiness> | 95 | 85 | ||
| <Expectation> | 69 | 85 | ||
| <<Peer support>> | ||||
| <Recognizing the existence of peers> | 9, 24, 39, 76, 84, 95, 96 | 19 | 93 | |
| <Acquiring information> | 39, 76, 95 | 64 | ||
| <Narrating their experiences> | 24, 57, 76 | |||
| <Supporting each other> | 24, 49, 58, 70, 84, 92, 95, 113 | 19, 55, 64, 87, 114 | ||
| <Encouraging peer support> | 3, 21, 105 | 64, 106 | ||
| <<Advantage consequence>> | ||||
| <Feeling positive> | 9, 21, 39, 58, 76, 92 | 59 | 93 | |
| <Changing behavior> | 49, 76, 113 | |||
| <<Disadvantage conditions>> | ||||
| <Egocentric comments> | 3 | |||
| <Infrequent usage> | 69, 96 | 106, 114 | ||
| <<Additional psychological burdens>> | ||||
| <Solely cyber communication> | 57, 76 | 64 | ||
| <Dependency> | 21, 24 | 59, 109 | ||
| <<Downward depressive spiral>>c | ||||
| <Downward depressive spiral >c | 87 | |||
| <Reading negative comments> | 58 | 30 | ||
| <Being depressive> | 39, 70 | 109 | ||
| <Writing negative comments> | 58 | |||
| <<Disadvantage consequence>> | ||||
| <Disappointment> | 30 | |||
a Numbers stand for anonymous registrants’ IDs, corresponding to Figure 3.
b< > denotes a concept; << >> denotes a category.
c After
Figure 3Social network in the SNS. Each node with a number represents one person. Numbers refer to anonymous registrants’ IDs, corresponding to Table 3. Each line between nodes indicates a “friend” relationship. Depressive states, assessment of the SNS, and mood states are explained in Table 2. We compared the mood states in two situations: (A) during normal time (time not using the SNS or Internet) and (C) while using the SNS. “Better than during normal time” means that the mood state in (C) is better than the mood state in (A).