Cited by 231Mental Health via WritingData-Driven Disease SurveillanceSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Social media, big data, and mental health: current advances and ethical implications

Open access
Conway, Mike, O’Connor, Daniel·2016·Current Opinion in Psychology

Abstract

Mental health (including substance abuse) is the fifth greatest contributor to the global burden of disease, with an economic cost estimated to be US $2.5 trillion in 2010, and expected to double by 2030. Developing information systems to support and strengthen population-level mental health monitoring forms a core part of the World Health Organization's Comprehensive Action Plan 2013-2020. In this paper, we review recent work that utilizes social media "big data" in conjunction with associated technologies like natural language processing and machine learning to address pressing problems in population-level mental health surveillance and research, focusing both on technological advances and core ethical challenges.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.01.004

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Users generally expect their privacy to be respected online, and most feel their data should not be used for mental health research without their explicit consent.

    “users generally expect their privacy to be respected online [37], with most feeling their data should not be used for mental health research without their explicit consent [34].”
  • Trust in AI for healthcare may be lost when AI have many false positive or negative results, are perceived to be incompetent, or make use of public data in a disrespectful way.

    “Trust may be lost when AI have many false positive or negative results [41], are perceived to be incompetent [30], or make use of public data in a disrespectful way [37].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [5]Lane J Stodden V Bender S Nissenbaum H Privacy, big data, and the public good Cambridge University Press 2014
  2. [54]Lopez S The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology Oxford University Press 2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conway, M., & O’Connor, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Wellcome Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Conway, Mike
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
9
Pages
77-82
ISSN
2352-250X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2250240141
Cited by
231
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 3
FWCI
2.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Library of Medicine (R00LM011393)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Data-Driven Disease Surveillance
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
social media, big data, mental health, substance abuse, natural language processing, machine learning, ethical implications, information systems, global burden of disease

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review