Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39158945›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

How Does an Online Mental Health Community on Twitter Empower Diverse Population Levels and Groups? A Qualitative Analysis of #BipolarClub.

Horeya AbouWarda, Mateusz Dolata, Gerhard Schwabe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Horeya AbouWardaDepartment of Informatics, Faculty of Business, Economics and Informatics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0957-4011
Mateusz DolataDepartment of Informatics, Faculty of Business, Economics and Informatics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2732-4465
Gerhard SchwabeDepartment of Informatics, Faculty of Business, Economics and Informatics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0453-9762

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media, including online health communities (OHCs), are widely used among both healthy people and those with health conditions. Platforms like Twitter (recently renamed X) have become powerful tools for online mental health communities (OMHCs), enabling users to exchange information, express feelings, and socialize. Recognized as empowering processes, these activities could empower mental health consumers, their families and friends, and society. However, it remains unclear how OMHCs empower diverse population levels and groups.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop an understanding of how empowerment processes are conducted within OMHCs on Twitter by identifying members who shape these communities, detecting the types of empowerment processes aligned with the population levels and groups outlined in Strategy 1 of the Integrated People-Centred Health Services (IPCHS) framework by the World Health Organization (WHO), and clarifying members' involvement tendencies in these processes.

methodsWe conducted our analysis on a Twitter OMHC called #bipolarclub. We captured 2068 original tweets using its hashtag #bipolarclub between December 19, 2022, and January 15, 2023. After screening, 547 eligible tweets by 182 authors were analyzed. Using qualitative content analysis, community members were classified by examining the 182 authors' Twitter profiles, and empowerment processes were identified by analyzing the 547 tweets and categorized according to the WHO's Strategy 1. Members' tendencies of involvement were examined through their contributions to the identified processes.

resultsThe analysis of #bipolarclub community members unveiled 5 main classifications among the 182 members, with the majority classified as individual members (n=138, 75.8%), followed by health care-related members (n=39, 21.4%). All members declared that they experience mental health conditions, including mental health and general practitioner members, who used the community as consumers and peers rather than for professional services. The analysis of 547 tweets for empowerment processes revealed 3 categories: individual-level processes (6 processes and 2 subprocesses), informal carer processes (1 process for families and 1 process for friends), and society-level processes (1 process and 2 subprocesses). The analysis also demonstrated distinct involvement tendencies among members, influenced by their identities, with individual members engaging in self-expression and family awareness support and health care-related members supporting societal awareness.

conclusionsThe examination of the #bipolarclub community highlights the capability of Twitter-based OMHCs to empower mental health consumers (including those from underserved and marginalized populations), their families and friends, and society, aligning with the WHO's empowerment agenda. This underscores the potential benefits of leveraging Twitter for such objectives. This pioneering study is the very first to analyze how a single OMHC can empower diverse populations, offering various health care stakeholders valuable guidance and aiding them in developing consumer-oriented empowerment programs using such OMHCs. We also propose a structured framework that classifies empowerment processes in OMHCs, inspired by the WHO's Strategy 1 (IPCHS framework).

Indexed as

EmpowermentMental HealthSocial MediaHumansMental Health ServicesQualitative Researchdiverse population levels and groupsempowerment processesIntegrated People-Centred Health ServicesIPCHS framework (Strategy 1)OMHConline mental health communitysocial mediaTwitterWHOWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID39158945
PMCPMC11369525

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.