ArticlePloS one2023
A year of pandemic: Levels, changes and validity of well-being data from Twitter. Evidence from ten countries.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editorial: The psychology of hope.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Used to Predict Loneliness, Social Isolation, and Drug Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- Reactions to macro-level shocks and re-examination of adaptation theory using Big Data.PloS one · 2024Article
- Three years of COVID-19 and life satisfaction in Europe: A macro view.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Neo-humanism and COVID-19: Opportunities for a socially and environmentally sustainable world.Applied research in quality of life · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We use daily happiness scores (Gross National Happiness (GNH)) to illustrate how happiness changed throughout 2020 in ten countries across Europe and the Southern hemisphere. More frequently and regularly available than survey data, the GNH reveals how happiness sharply declined at the onset of the pandemic and lockdown, quickly recovered, and then trended downward throughout much of the year in Europe. GNH is derived by applying sentiment and emotion analysis-based on Natural Language Processing using machine learning algorithms-to Twitter posts (tweets). Using a similar approach, we generate another 11 variables: eight emotions and three new context-specific variables, in particular: trust in national institutions, sadness in relation to loneliness, and fear concerning the economy. Given the novelty of the dataset, we use multiple methods to assess validity. We also assess the correlates of GNH. The results indicate that GNH is negatively correlated with new COVID-19 cases, containment policies, and disgust and positively correlated with staying at home, surprise, and generalised trust. Altogether the analyses indicate tools based on Big Data, such as the GNH, offer relevant data that often fill information gaps and can valuably supplement traditional tools. In this case, the GNH results suggest that both the severity of the pandemic and containment policies negatively correlated with happiness.
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.