Emotional support from social media and face-to-face relationships: Associations with depression risk among young adults
Emotional support from social media and face-to-face relationships: Associations with depression risk among young adults
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.092
复制
发表时间：
2020-01-01
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Choukas-Bradley, Sophia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shensa, Ariel;Sidani, Jaime E.;Choukas-Bradley, Sophia
背景：情感支持对于预防不良心理健康具有很强的保护作用。尽管存在多种情感支持措施，但没有一个具体将社交媒体（SM）作为情感支持的来源。因此，本研究的目的是确定基于 SM 的情感支持是否是面对面 (FTF) 情感支持的延伸或不同的结构，并评估美国年轻人中情感支持的每个领域与抑郁风险之间的独立关联。 方法：2018 年 3 月，我们调查了 2408 名 18-30 岁的人。我们使用简短的 PROMIS 情感支持量表评估了感知到的 FTF 情感支持，并使用新的四项测量来评估感知到的基于 SM 的情感支持。使用 PHQ-9 评估抑郁风险。我们进行了因子分析 (FA) 来确定所有项目的基本因子结构并制定复合量表。使用多变量逻辑回归来检查每个情绪支持量表与抑郁风险之间的独立关联。结果：FA 揭示了两种不同的结构。在 5 分制中，每增加 1 个单位，FTF 情感支持与抑郁几率降低 43% 相关（AOR = 0.57，95% CI = 0.52-0.63）。然而，在 5 分制中，每增加 1 个单位，基于 SM 的情感支持与抑郁几率增加 20% 显着相关（AOR = 1.20，95% CI = 1.09-1.32）。 局限性：本研究采用横断面设计和自我报告数据。 结论：虽然 FTF 情感支持与抑郁几率稍低相关，但基于 SM 的情感支持与抑郁几率稍高相关。对于治疗抑郁症患者的临床医生来说，询问情感支持的来源可能很有价值。
Background: Emotional support is highly protective against poor mental health. Though several measures of emotional support exist, none specifically addresses social media (SM) as a source of emotional support. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine if SM-based emotional support is an extension of or distinct construct from face-to-face (FTF) emotional support and to assess the independent associations between each domain of emotional support and depression risk among U.S. young adults.Methods: In March 2018, we surveyed 2408 18-30 year olds. We assessed perceived FTF emotional support with the brief PROMIS emotional support scale and perceived SM-based emotional support using a new four-item measure. Depression risk was assessed using the PHQ-9. We performed factor analysis (FA) to determine the underlying factor structure of all items and to develop composite scales. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the independent association between each resulting emotional support scale and depression risk.Results: FA revealed two distinct constructs. FTF emotional support was associated with 43% lower odds of depression per 1-unit increase on the 5-point scale (AOR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.52-0.63). However, SM-based emotional support was significantly associated with 20% greater odds of depression per 1-unit increase on the 5point scale (AOR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.09-1.32).Limitations: This study utilized a cross-sectional design and self-report data.Conclusions: While FTF emotional support was associated with slightly lower odds of depression, SM-based emotional support was associated with slightly greater odds of depression. It may be valuable for clinicians treating individuals with depression to ask about sources of emotional support.