ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Public perception of psychiatry, psychology and mental health professionals: a 15-year analysis.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sentiment analysis and topic modeling of social media data to explore public discourse on irritable bowel syndrome.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Public perceptions and emotional trends of psychotherapy: a 15-year analysis across English and Spanish language communities on X (twitter).Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: X (previously known as "Twitter") serves as a platform for open discussions on mental health, providing an avenue for scrutinizing public perspectives regarding psychiatry, psychology and their associated professionals. Objective: To analyze the conversations happening on X about psychiatrists, psychologists, and their respective disciplines to understand how the public perception of these professionals and specialties has evolved over the last 15 years. Methods: We collected and analyzed all tweets posted in English or Spanish between 2007 and 2023 referring to psychiatry, psychology, neurology, mental health, psychiatrist, psychologist, or neurologist using advance topic modelling and sentiment analysis. Results: A total of 403,767 tweets were analyzed, 155,217 (38%) were in English and 248,550 (62%) in Spanish. Tweets about mental health and mental health professionals and disciplines showed a consistent volume between 2011 and 2016, followed by a gradual increase from 2016 through 2022. The proportion of tweets discussing mental health doubled from 2016 to 2022, increasing from 20% to 67% in Spanish and from 15% to 45% in English. Several differences were observed on the volume of tweets overtime depending on the language they were written. Users associated each term with varied topics, such as seeking for help and recommendation for therapy, self-help resources, medication and side effects, suicide prevention, mental health in times of crisis, among others. The number of tweets mentioning these topics increased by 5-10% from 2016 to 2022, indicating a growing interest among the population. Emotional analysis showed most of the topics were associated with fear and anger. Conclusion: The increasing trend in discussions about mental health and the related professionals and disciplines over time may signify an elevated collective awareness of mental health. Gaining insights into the topics around these matters and user's corresponding emotions towards them presents an opportunity to combat the stigma surrounding mental health more effectively.
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.