| Literature DB >> 35579921 |
Claudia García-Martínez1, Bárbara Oliván-Blázquez2, Javier Fabra3, Ana Belén Martínez-Martínez4, María Cruz Pérez-Yus2, Yolanda López-Del-Hoyo2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social media is now a common context wherein people express their feelings in real time. These platforms are increasingly showing their potential to detect the mental health status of the population. Suicide prevention is a global health priority and efforts toward early detection are starting to develop, although there is a need for more robust research.Entities:
Keywords: Twitter; big data; content analysis; eHealth; emotional analysis; emotional content; mental health; prevention; public health; risk factors; social media; suicide; suicide prevention
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35579921 PMCID: PMC9157318 DOI: 10.2196/31800
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill ISSN: 2369-2960
Figure 1Methodology for the early detection and prevention of the risk of suicide on Twitter.
Description of the tweets deemed relevant.
| Variables | Value | ||
| Valencea, median (IQR) | 21.58 (24.25) | ||
|
|
| ||
|
| Anger | 24.00 (34.00) | |
|
| Joy | 0.00 (1.50) | |
|
| Fear | 17.25 (32.37) | |
|
| Sadness | 51.41 (39.12) | |
|
| Surprise | 0.50 (5.50) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Extroversion | 28.00 (34.29) | |
|
| Sensory | 25.16 (29.25) | |
|
| Rational | 19.50 (27.37) | |
|
| Judgement | 19.00 (32.00) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Defeat | 61 (62.2) | |
|
| Rejection | 16 (16.3) | |
|
| Both | 21 (21.4) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Yes | 25 (15.5) | |
|
| No | 136 (84.5) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Yes | 4 (2.0) | |
|
| No | 192 (98.0) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Yes | 57 (37.5) | |
|
| No | 95 (62.5) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| General risk | 1.50 (1.00) | |
|
| Severity suicidal risk at present moment (real-time risk) | 1.00 (1.16) | |
|
|
| ||
|
| Yes | 6 (3.1) | |
|
| No | 186 (96.9) | |
| Intensity of autolytic thoughtsc, median (IQR) | 4.50 (3.00) | ||
|
|
| ||
|
| Yes | 4 (1.9) | |
|
| No | 206 (98.1) | |
aThese variables were evaluated on a scale from 0 to 100.
bThese variables were evaluated on a scale from 0 to 4.
cThis variable was evaluated on a scale from 0 to 10.
Spearman correlations between variables and severity of the risk of suicide at the time of writing the tweet.
| Variables |
| ||||
| Valence | –0.069 | .31 | |||
|
| |||||
|
| Anger | –0.013 | .85 | ||
|
| Joy | –0.234 | .001 | ||
|
| Fear | –0.097 | .16 | ||
|
| Sadness | 0.266 | <.001 | ||
|
| Surprise | –0.075 | .27 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| Extroversion | –0.22 | .001 | ||
|
| Sensory | –0.115 | .09 | ||
|
| Rational | –0.244 | <.001 | ||
|
| Judgement | –0.128 | .06 | ||
|
| |||||
|
| General risk | 0.908 | <.001 | ||
|
| Intensity of autolytic thoughts | 0.766 | <.001 | ||
Comparison of severity of the risk of suicide at the time of writing the tweet between qualitative variables.
| Variables | Severity of the risk of suicide at the moment (real-time risk), median (IQR) | ||
|
|
| ||
|
| Defeat | 1.33 (1.42) | .003 |
|
| Rejection | 0.33 (1.25) | |
|
| Both | 1.66 (1) | |
|
| |||
|
| Yes | 1 (0) | <.001 |
|
| No | 1 (1.17) | |
|
| |||
|
| Yes | 0.33 (0.66) | .03 |
|
| No | 1 (1.16) | |
|
| |||
|
| Yes | 1.5 (1) | .001 |
|
| No | 1 (1.17) | |
|
| |||
|
| Yes | 2.16 (1.30) | .007 |
|
| No | 1 (1) | |
|
| |||
|
| Yes | 0.75 (0.63) | .22 |
|
| No | 1 (1.16) | |
Linear regression model coefficients indicating the relationship to severity of the risk of suicide at the time of writing the tweet.
| Variables | Coefficient (95% CI) | |
| Constant | 0.110 (–0.169, 0.412) | .45 |
| Intensity of autolytic thoughts | 0.311 (0.250, 0.370) | .001 |
| Fear | –0.009 (–0.015, –0.005) | .01 |
| Valence | 0.007 (0.002, 0.013) | .009 |