Cited by 96Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityMental Health Treatment and AccessMental Health via Writing

Cross-sectional survey of users of Internet depression communities

Open access
Powell, John, McCarthy, Noel, Eysenbach, Gunther·2003·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Internet-based depression communities provide a forum for individuals to communicate and share information and ideas. There has been little research into the health status and other characteristics of users of these communities. METHODS: Online cross-sectional survey of Internet depression communities to identify depressive morbidity among users of Internet depression communities in six European countries; to investigate whether users were in contact with health services and receiving treatment; and to identify user perceived effects of the communities. RESULTS: Major depression was highly prevalent among respondents (varying by country from 40% to 64%). Forty-nine percent of users meeting criteria for major depression were not receiving treatment, and 35% had no consultation with health services in the previous year. Thirty-six percent of repeat community users who had consulted a health professional in the previous year felt that the Internet community had been an important factor in deciding to seek professional help. CONCLUSIONS: There are high levels of untreated and undiagnosed depression in users of Internet depression communities. This group represents a target for intervention. Internet communities can provide information and support for stigmatizing conditions that inhibit more traditional modes of information seeking.

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 · 10.1186/1471-244x-3-19

Cites

25 of 27 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?

  • Social media has been associated with positive outcomes such as reinforcement of healthy behaviors and help-seeking.

    “Although excessive social media use has been linked to adverse outcomes like depression and anxiety [39], social media has also been associated with positive outcomes such as reinforcement of healthy behaviors and help-seeking [40].”

    From Associations Between Social Media and Suicidal Behaviors During a Youth Suicide Cluster in Ohio (2021) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Results (Self-perceived effects of communities; page unavailable) report that 36% of respondents who answered the consultation question felt an Internet depression community was an important factor in deciding to seek professional help. The paper does not report reinforcement of healthy behaviors, and its findings concern Internet depression communities rather than social media generally. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Powell, J., McCarthy, N., & Eysenbach, G.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Powell, John
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2003-12-10
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
19-19
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114836419
Cited by
96
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
online support groups, major depressive disorder, untreated depression, undiagnosed depression, help-seeking, health care utilization, user perception, depression prevalence, stigma
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Depressive Disorder, Europe, Female, Health Services, Humans, Information Services, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Personality Inventory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Seasons, Self-Help Groups, Stereotyping, United States, Prevalence, Internet

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