Buffering against exposure to mental health misinformation in online communities on Facebook: the interplay of depression literacy and expert moderation.

BACKGROUND: The proliferation of health misinformation on social media is a growing public health concern. Online communities for mental health (OCMHs) are also considered an outlet for exposure to misinformation. This study explored the impact of the self-reported volume of exposure to mental health misinformation in misinformation agreement and the moderating effects of depression literacy and type of OCMHs participation (expert vs. peer-led). METHODS: Participants (n = 403) were recruited in Italian-speaking OCMHs on Facebook. We conducted regression analyses using PROCESS macro (moderated moderation, Model 3). Measures included: the Depression Literacy Questionnaire (Griffiths et al., 2004), the self-reported misinformation exposure in the OCMHs (3 items), and misinformation agreement with the exposure items (3 items). Whether participants were members of expert or peer-led OCMHs was also investigated. RESULTS: The final model explained the 12% variance in the agreement. There was a positive and significant relationship between misinformation exposure and misinformation agreement (ß = 0.3221, p < .001), a significant two-way interaction between misinformation exposure and depression literacy (ß = - 0.2179, p = .0014 ), and between self-reported misinformation exposure and type of OCMH (ß = - 0.2322, p = .0254), such that at higher levels of depression literacy and in case of participation to expert-led OCMHs, the relationship misinformation exposure-misinformation agreement was weaker. Finally, a three-way interaction was found (ß = 0.2497, p = .0144) that showed that depression literacy moderated the positive relationship between misinformation exposure and misinformation agreement such that the more misinformation participants were exposed to, the more they agreed with it unless they had higher levels of depression literacy; this, however, occurred only if they participated in peer-led groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide evidence that the more members reported being exposed to mental health misinformation, the more they tended to agree with it, however this was only visible when participants had lower depression literacy and were participating in peer-led OCMHs. Results of this study suggest that both internal factors (i.e., high depression literacy) and external factors (the type of online community individuals were participating in) can buffer the negative effects of misinformation exposure. It also suggests that increasing depression literacy and expert community moderation could curb the negative consequences of misinformation exposure related to mental health. Results will guide interventions to mitigate the effects of misinformation in OCMHs, including encouraging health professionals in their administration and implementing health education programs.

The "Loci" of Misinformation and Its Correction in Peer- and Expert-Led Online Communities for Mental Health: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems are recognized as a pressing public health issue, and an increasing number of individuals are turning to online communities for mental health to search for information and support. Although these virtual platforms have the potential to provide emotional support and access to anecdotal experiences, they can also present users with large amounts of potentially inaccurate information. Despite the importance of this issue, limited research has been conducted, especially on the differences that might emerge due to the type of content moderation of online communities: peer-led or expert-led. OBJECTIVE: We aim to fill this gap by examining the prevalence, the communicative context, and the persistence of mental health misinformation on Facebook online communities for mental health, with a focus on understanding the mechanisms that enable effective correction of inaccurate information and differences between expert-led and peer-led groups. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of 1534 statements (from 144 threads) in 2 Italian-speaking Facebook groups. RESULTS: The study found that an alarming number of comments (26.1%) contained medically inaccurate information. Furthermore, nearly 60% of the threads presented at least one misinformation statement without any correction attempt. Moderators were more likely to correct misinformation than members; however, they were not immune to posting content containing misinformation, which was an unexpected finding. Discussions about aspects of treatment (including side effects or treatment interruption) significantly increased the probability of encountering misinformation. Additionally, the study found that misinformation produced in the comments of a thread, rather than as the first post, had a lower probability of being corrected, particularly in peer-led communities. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of misinformation in online communities, particularly when left uncorrected, underscores the importance of conducting additional research to identify effective mechanisms to prevent its spread. This is especially important given the study's finding that misinformation tends to be more prevalent around specific "loci" of discussion that, once identified, can serve as a starting point to develop strategies for preventing and correcting misinformation within them.

The Empowering Role of Web-Based Help Seeking on Depressive Symptoms: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most research on web-based help seeking for mental health problems has focused on the antecedents of this behavior. Therefore, little is known about the outcomes of web-based help seeking in general or in specific mental health issues. OBJECTIVE: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the antecedents and consequences of web-based help-seeking behaviors for depressive symptoms. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out in 6 scientific databases, leading to 48 studies (for a total of 314,921 participants) included in the qualitative synthesis and 19 included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results indicated a positive relationship between depressive symptoms and web-based help-seeking behaviors through online support groups (r=0.089; P=.009), and Generation Z (r=0.102; P=.008) tended to participate in support groups more than previous generations. In addition, web-based help seeking was positively related to empowerment (r=0.245; P=.004). Other forms of support reported included the internet and specific self-help tools, but no significant relationships were found with depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: More studies examining the outcomes are needed, together with a more rigorous assessment of web-based help-seeking behaviors. Ultimately, we propose a summary framework for the literature on this topic, including the antecedents, patterns of use, and outcomes of web-based help seeking in the context of depressive symptoms.

Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Study the Development of COVID-19 Worries in Sweden: Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: The foray of COVID-19 around the globe has certainly instigated worries in many people, and lockdown measures may well have triggered more specific worries. Sweden, more than other countries, relied on voluntary measures to fight the pandemic. This provides a particularly interesting context to assess people's reactions to the threat of the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The general aim of this study was to better understand the worried reactions to the virus and the associated lockdown measures. As there have been very few longitudinal studies in this area published to date, development of feelings of worry over time was analyzed over a longer range than in previous research. Affective variables, worry in particular, were included because most of the research in this field has focused on cognitive variables. To employ new methodology, ecological momentary assessment was used for data collection and a multilevel modeling approach was adopted for data analysis. METHODS: Results were based on an unbalanced panel sample of 260 Swedish participants filling in 3226 interview questionnaires by smartphone over a 7-week period in 2020 during the rapid rise of cases in the early phase of the pandemic. Causal factors considered in this study included the perceived severity of an infection, susceptibility of a person to the threat posed by the virus, perceived efficacy of safeguarding measures, and assessment of government action against the spread of COVID-19. The effect of these factors on worries was traced in two analytical steps: the effects at the beginning of the study and the effect on the trend during the study. RESULTS: The level of general worry related to COVID-19 was modest (mean 6.67, SD 2.54 on an 11-point Likert scale); the increase during the study period was small, but the interindividual variation of both the worry level and its increase over time was large. Findings confirmed that the hypothesized causal factors (severity of infection, susceptibility to the threat of the virus, efficacy of safeguarding, and assessment of government preventive action) did indeed affect the level of worry. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirmed earlier research in a very special case and demonstrated the usefulness of a different study design, which takes a longitudinal perspective, and a new type of data analysis borrowed from multilevel study design.

Misinformation in Italian Online Mental Health Communities During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Content Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms are widely used by people suffering from mental illnesses to cope with their conditions. One modality of coping with these conditions is navigating online communities where people can receive emotional support and informational advice. Benefits have been documented in terms of impact on health outcomes. However, the pitfalls are still unknown, as not all content is necessarily helpful or correct. Furthermore, the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic and related problems, such as worsening mental health symptoms, the dissemination of conspiracy narratives, and medical distrust, may have impacted these online communities. The situation in Italy is of particular interest, being the first Western country to experience a nationwide lockdown. Particularly during this challenging time, the beneficial role of community moderators with professional mental health expertise needs to be investigated in terms of uncovering misleading information and regulating communities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the proposed study is to investigate the potentially harmful content found in online communities for mental health symptoms in the Italian language. Besides descriptive information about the content that posts and comments address, this study aims to analyze the content from two viewpoints. The first one compares expert-led and peer-led communities, focusing on differences in misinformation. The second one unravels the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, not by merely investigating differences in topics but also by investigating the needs expressed by community members. METHODS: A codebook for the content analysis of Facebook communities has been developed, and a content analysis will be conducted on bundles of posts. Among 14 Facebook groups that were interested in participating in this study, two groups were selected for analysis: one was being moderated by a health professional (n=12,058 members) and one was led by peers (n=5598 members). Utterances from 3 consecutive calendar years will be studied by comparing the months from before the pandemic, the months during the height of the pandemic, and the months during the postpandemic phase (2019-2021). This method permits the identification of different types of misinformation and the context in which they emerge. Ethical approval was obtained by the Università della Svizzera italiana ethics committee. RESULTS: The usability of the codebook was demonstrated with a pretest. Subsequently, 144 threads (1534 utterances) were coded by the two coders. Intercoder reliability was calculated on 293 units (19.10% of the total sample; Krippendorff α=.94, range .72-1). Aside from a few analyses comparing bundles, individual utterances will constitute the unit of analysis in most cases. CONCLUSIONS: This content analysis will identify deleterious content found in online mental health support groups, the potential role of moderators in uncovering misleading information, and the impact of COVID-19 on the content. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/35347.