Ariel Shensa1, Jaime E Sidani2, César G Escobar-Viera2, Galen E Switzer3, Brian A Primack4, Sophia Choukas-Bradley5. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Center for Research on Media, Technology, and Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. Electronic address: ariel.shensa@pitt.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; Center for Research on Media, Technology, and Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. 4. College of Education and Health Professions, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AK, United States. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotional support is highly protective against poor mental health. Though several measures of emotional support exist, none specifically addresses social media (SM) as a source of emotional support. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine if SM-based emotional support is an extension of or distinct construct from face-to-face (FTF) emotional support and to assess the independent associations between each domain of emotional support and depression risk among U.S. young adults. METHODS: In March 2018, we surveyed 2408 18-30 year olds. We assessed perceived FTF emotional support with the brief PROMIS emotional support scale and perceived SM-based emotional support using a new four-item measure. Depression risk was assessed using the PHQ-9. We performed factor analysis (FA) to determine the underlying factor structure of all items and to develop composite scales. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the independent association between each resulting emotional support scale and depression risk. RESULTS: FA revealed two distinct constructs. FTF emotional support was associated with 43% lower odds of depression per 1-unit increase on the 5-point scale (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.52-0.63). However, SM-based emotional support was significantly associated with 20% greater odds of depression per 1-unit increase on the 5-point scale (AOR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.09-1.32). LIMITATIONS: This study utilized a cross-sectional design and self-report data. CONCLUSIONS: While FTF emotional support was associated with slightly lower odds of depression, SM-based emotional support was associated with slightly greater odds of depression. It may be valuable for clinicians treating individuals with depression to ask about sources of emotional support.
BACKGROUND: Emotional support is highly protective against poor mental health. Though several measures of emotional support exist, none specifically addresses social media (SM) as a source of emotional support. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine if SM-based emotional support is an extension of or distinct construct from face-to-face (FTF) emotional support and to assess the independent associations between each domain of emotional support and depression risk among U.S. young adults. METHODS: In March 2018, we surveyed 2408 18-30 year olds. We assessed perceived FTF emotional support with the brief PROMIS emotional support scale and perceived SM-based emotional support using a new four-item measure. Depression risk was assessed using the PHQ-9. We performed factor analysis (FA) to determine the underlying factor structure of all items and to develop composite scales. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the independent association between each resulting emotional support scale and depression risk. RESULTS: FA revealed two distinct constructs. FTF emotional support was associated with 43% lower odds of depression per 1-unit increase on the 5-point scale (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.52-0.63). However, SM-based emotional support was significantly associated with 20% greater odds of depression per 1-unit increase on the 5-point scale (AOR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.09-1.32). LIMITATIONS: This study utilized a cross-sectional design and self-report data. CONCLUSIONS: While FTF emotional support was associated with slightly lower odds of depression, SM-based emotional support was associated with slightly greater odds of depression. It may be valuable for clinicians treating individuals with depression to ask about sources of emotional support.
Authors: Brian A Primack; Ariel Shensa; Jaime E Sidani; Erin O Whaite; Liu Yi Lin; Daniel Rosen; Jason B Colditz; Ana Radovic; Elizabeth Miller Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Brian A Primack; Meghan A Bisbey; Ariel Shensa; Nicholas D Bowman; Sabrina A Karim; Jennifer M Knight; Jaime E Sidani Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Megan A Moreno; Lauren A Jelenchick; Katie G Egan; Elizabeth Cox; Henry Young; Kerry E Gannon; Tara Becker Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2011-03-11 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Jessica L Hamilton; Quyen B Do; Sophia Choukas-Bradley; Cecile D Ladouceur; Jennifer S Silk Journal: Res Child Adolesc Psychopathol Date: 2020-11-27
Authors: Chang Liu; Melinda McCabe; Andrew Dawson; Chad Cyrzon; Shruthi Shankar; Nardin Gerges; Sebastian Kellett-Renzella; Yann Chye; Kim Cornish Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Richard J Shaw; Breda Cullen; Nicholas Graham; Donald M Lyall; Daniel Mackay; Chukwudi Okolie; Robert Pearsall; Joey Ward; Ann John; Daniel J Smith Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Erin A Vogel; Danielle E Ramo; Judith J Prochaska; Meredith C Meacham; John F Layton; Gary L Humfleet Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2021-05-28