Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34348169›Full record

ArticleJournal of affective disorders2021

Is Google Trends a useful tool for tracking mental and social distress during a public health emergency? A time-series analysis.

Duleeka Knipe, David Gunnell, Hannah Evans, Ann John, Daisy Fancourt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of affective disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Duleeka KnipePopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
David GunnellPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.; National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, UK. Electronic address: d.j.gunnell@bristol.ac.uk.
Hannah EvansPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Ann JohnPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Daisy FancourtDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_17211Wellcome Trust 204813
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGoogle 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.

methodsRelative 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).

resultsSelf-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: 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.

conclusionGoogle 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.

Indexed as

COVID-19Public HealthAnxietyHumansSARS-CoV-2Search EngineAnxietyDepressionDomestic violenceLonelinessMental HealthPandemicSuicide

Identifiers

PMID34348169
PMCPMC8411666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.