ArticleBMC psychology2023
"I *know* all the things I should be doing …": accounting for mental health and illness in an online mental health discussion forum during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental health is highly correlated with a person's social and economic circumstances, and the recent COVID-19 pandemic made this connection uniquely visible. Yet a discourse of personal responsibility for mental health often dominates in mental health promotion campaigns, media coverage and lay understandings, contributing to the stigmatisation of mental ill-health.
methodsIn this study, we analysed how the concept of 'mental health' was discursively constructed in an online mental health peer-support forum in Australia during 2020, the period of the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. An approach informed by Critical Discursive Psychology was employed to analyse all posts made to a discussion thread entitled "Coping during the coronavirus outbreak" in 2020, a total of 1,687 posts.
resultsTwo main interpretative repertoires concerning mental health were identified. Under the first repertoire, mental health was understood as resulting largely from the regular performance of a suite of self-care behaviours. Under the second repertoire, mental health was understood as resulting largely from external circumstances outside of the individual's control. The existence of two different repertoires of mental health created an ideological dilemma which posters negotiated when reporting mental ill-health. A recurring pattern of accounting for mental ill-health was noted in which posters employed a three-part concessive structure to concede Repertoire 1 amid assertions of Repertoire 2; and used disclaimers, justifications, and excuses to avoid negative typification of their identity as ignorant or irresponsible.
conclusionsMental ill-health was commonly oriented to by forum posters as an accountable or morally untoward state, indicating the societal pervasiveness of a discourse of personal responsibility for mental health. Such discourses are likely to contribute to the stigmatisation of those suffering from mental ill-health. There is a need therefore for future communications about mental health to be framed in a way that increases awareness of social determinants, as well as for policy responses to effect material change to social determinants of mental health.
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.