Cited by 72Mental Health via WritingHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityDigital Mental Health Interventions

Causal Factors of Effective Psychosocial Outcomes in Online Mental Health Communities

Open access
Saha, Koustuv, Sharma, Amit·2020·Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Online mental health communities enable people to seek and provide support, and growing evidence shows the efficacy of community participation to cope with mental health distress. However, what factors of peer support lead to favorable psychosocial outcomes for individuals is less clear. Using a dataset of over 300K posts by ∼39K individuals on an online community TalkLife, we present a study to investigate the effect of several factors, such as adaptability, diversity, immediacy, and the nature of support. Unlike typical causal studies that focus on the effect of each treatment, we focus on the outcome and address the reverse causal question of identifying treatments that may have led to the outcome, drawing on case-control studies in epidemiology. Specifically, we define the outcome as an aggregate of affective, behavioral, and cognitive psychosocial change and identify Case (most improved) and Control (least improved) cohorts of individuals. Considering responses from peers as treatments, we evaluate the differences in the responses received by Case and Control, per matched clusters of similar individuals. We find that effective support includes complex language factors such as diversity, adaptability, and style, but simple indicators such as quantity and immediacy are not causally relevant. Our work bears methodological and design implications for online mental health platforms, and has the potential to guide suggestive interventions for peer supporters on these platforms.

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 · 10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7326

Cites

65 of 65 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?

  • LIWC is a validated psycholinguistic lexicon and has been widely used in social media data and misinformation empirical and detection work.

    “LIWC is a validated psycholinguistic lexicon [104] and has been widely used in social media data and misinformation empirical and detection work [51,91].”

    From Synthetic Lies: Understanding AI-Generated Misinformation and Evaluating Algorithmic and Human Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [91]

    In “Language Indicative of Mental Health Symptomatic Outcomes” (page unavailable), the paper uses LIWC to analyze language in an online mental health community, supporting its use in social-media research. It does not address misinformation research or detection, or establish that LIWC is widely used in those areas. The separate validation statement is attached to [104], not this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The support expression classifiers had k-fold cross-validation accuracies of 0.71 and 0.77 in emotional and informational support classifications, respectively.

    “When the predictions of these classifiers were cross-validated with expert annotations from Sharma and De Choudhury’s [38] data, the classifiers were found to have k-fold cross-validation accuracies of 0.71 and 0.77 in ES and IS classifications, respectively [39].”

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: 4

  1. [7]7. Chancellor, S.; Baumer, E. P.; and De Choudhury, M. 2019. Who is the "human" in human-centered machine learning: The case of predicting mental health from social media. PACM HCI (CSCW).
  2. [24]24. Huh, J. 2015. Clinical questions in online health communities: the case of see your doctor threads. In Proc. CSCW.
  3. [45]45. Varol, O.; and Kiciman, E. 2017. Distilling the out- comes of personal experiences: A propensity-scored analysis of social media. In Proc. CSCW.
  4. [52]52. Pruksachatkun, Y.; Pendse, S. R.; and Sharma, A. 2019. Moments of change: Analyzing peer-based cognitive support in online mental health forums. In CHI.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saha, K., & Sharma, A.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Microsoft Research (India) (IN)
Corresponding author
Saha, Koustuv
Venue
Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
14
Pages
590-601
ISSN
  • 2162-3449 (ISSN-L)
  • 2334-0770
OpenAlex
W3026768119
Cited by
72
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7
FWCI
11.28
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
online mental health communities, peer support, psychosocial outcomes, causal inference, reverse causality, case-control study, peer diversity, language style, online community participation, psychiatric distress

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