ArticleBMJ open2018
Detecting concurrent mood in daily contact networks: an online participatory cohort study with a diary approach.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Capturing dynamics in nursing: a diary study of nurses' job characteristics and ability and willingness to continue working.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Using contact tracing from interlocking diaries to map mood contagion along network chains.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Quality of Life and Multilevel Contact Network Structures Among Healthy Adults in Taiwan: Online Participatory Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Assessing effects of personal behaviors and environmental exposure on asthma episodes: a diary-based approach.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis paper examines how people express personal mood concurrently with those connected with them by one or two degrees of separation.
designParticipatory cohort study.
settingOnline contact diary.
participants133 participants kept online diaries for 7 months in 2014, which included 127 455 contacts with 12 070 persons.
main outcome measuresDiary keepers rated a contacted person's mood during each specific contact, as well as the strength of ties between any pairs of such contacted persons. Such rich information about ties and contacts enable us to construct a complete contact network for each diary keeper, along with the network members' mood and tie strength. We calculate one's overall mood by that person's average mood score during the study period and take the shortest path between any given pair of contacted persons as the degree of separation. We further assume that two connecting persons in a contact network have made contact with each other during the study period, which allows us to examine whether and how personal moods occur concurrently within these contact networks.
resultsUsing mixed-effects models while controlling for covariates at individual, tie and contact levels, we show that personal mood score positively and significantly correlates with the average mood among those directly tied to the person. The same effect remains positive and significant for those connected to the person by two degrees, although the effect size is reduced by about one-half. The mood of anyone separated by more than two degrees is statistically irrelevant.
conclusionsApplying network perspectives and rich data at both tie and contact levels to inquiries about subjective well-being, the current study sheds new light on how an improved diary approach can help explain the sophisticated ways in which individuals express their personal moods concurrently during social interactions in everyday life, contact by contact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.