2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mapping population mental health concerns related to COVID-19 and the consequences of physical distancing: a Google trends analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: The 2020 Coronavirus pandemic is a major international public health challenge.  Governments have taken public health protection measures to reduce the spread of the virus through non-pharmalogical measures. The impact of the pandemic and the public health response on individual and population mental health is unknown. 

          Methods: We used Google Trends data (1 Jan 2020 -  30 Mar 2020) to investigate the impact of the pandemic and government measures to curb it on people’s concerns, as indexed by changes in search frequency for topics indicating mental distress, social and economic stressors and mental health treatment-seeking. We explored the changes of key topics in Google trends in Italy, Spain, USA, UK, and Worldwide in relation to sentinel events during the pandemic.

          Results: Globally there appears to be significant concerns over the financial and work-related consequences of the pandemic, with some evidence that levels of fear are rising. Conversely relative searching for topics related to depression and suicide fell after the pandemic was announced, with some evidence that searches for the latter have risen recently. Concerns over education and access to medication appear to be particular social stressors. Whilst searches for face-to-face treatments have declined, those for self-care have risen.

          Conclusions: Monitoring Google trends shows promise as a means of tracking changing public concerns. In weeks to come it may enable policy makers to assess the impact of their interventions including those aiming to limit negative consequences, such as government funded financial safety nets.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

          Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Use of Google Trends in Health Care Research: A Systematic Review

            Background Google Trends is a novel, freely accessible tool that allows users to interact with Internet search data, which may provide deep insights into population behavior and health-related phenomena. However, there is limited knowledge about its potential uses and limitations. We therefore systematically reviewed health care literature using Google Trends to classify articles by topic and study aim; evaluate the methodology and validation of the tool; and address limitations for its use in research. Methods and Findings PRISMA guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers systematically identified studies utilizing Google Trends for health care research from MEDLINE and PubMed. Seventy studies met our inclusion criteria. Google Trends publications increased seven-fold from 2009 to 2013. Studies were classified into four topic domains: infectious disease (27% of articles), mental health and substance use (24%), other non-communicable diseases (16%), and general population behavior (33%). By use, 27% of articles utilized Google Trends for casual inference, 39% for description, and 34% for surveillance. Among surveillance studies, 92% were validated against a reference standard data source, and 80% of studies using correlation had a correlation statistic ≥0.70. Overall, 67% of articles provided a rationale for their search input. However, only 7% of articles were reproducible based on complete documentation of search strategy. We present a checklist to facilitate appropriate methodological documentation for future studies. A limitation of the study is the challenge of classifying heterogeneous studies utilizing a novel data source. Conclusion Google Trends is being used to study health phenomena in a variety of topic domains in myriad ways. However, poor documentation of methods precludes the reproducibility of the findings. Such documentation would enable other researchers to determine the consistency of results provided by Google Trends for a well-specified query over time. Furthermore, greater transparency can improve its reliability as a research tool.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Google Trends: Opportunities and limitations in health and health policy research

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data CurationRole: Formal AnalysisRole: Funding AcquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project AdministrationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – Original Draft PreparationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: Data CurationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – Review & Editing
                Journal
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Res
                Wellcome Open Research
                F1000 Research Limited (London, UK )
                2398-502X
                10 June 2020
                2020
                10 June 2020
                : 5
                : 82
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
                [2 ]Population Data Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
                [3 ]National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
                [1 ]Department of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                [1 ]Center on Gun Violence Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA
                [1 ]Department of Neurosciences, Center for Contextual Psychiatry, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                University of Bristol, UK
                [1 ]Center on Gun Violence Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA
                University of Bristol, UK
                Author notes

                No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: I recently co-authored a commentary with three of the authors of the current manuscript (Suicide risk and prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic; Lancet Psychiatry) as part of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration (ICSPRC). I do not feel this affected my review.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: I was recently involved in the below commentary with David Gunnell, Ann John and Dee Knipe, in a minor way as part of the COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration consortium (DOI: 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30171-1). I do not believe this affected my ability to review impartially.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1040-7635
                Article
                10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15870.2
                7331103
                32671230
                4a5e47bc-fea2-40fb-bf4a-e49c87bde88b
                Copyright: © 2020 Knipe D et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 3 June 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust
                Award ID: 204813
                Funded by: University of Bristol
                This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust through an Institutional Strategic Support Fund Award to the University of Bristol [204813] which supports DK. DK is also supported through the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of Bristol.
                The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Articles

                covid-19,suicide,mental health,pandemic,economic,depression,anxiety,coronavirus

                Comments

                Comment on this article