Attention:NSF PAR will be unavailable due to scheduled facility maintenance July 10th, 5 PM EDT through July 13th. We apologize for any inconvenience.


Title: Irritability and Social Media Use in US Adults
ImportanceEfforts to understand the complex association between social media use and mental health have focused on depression, with little investigation of other forms of negative affect, such as irritability and anxiety. ObjectiveTo characterize the association between self-reported use of individual social media platforms and irritability among US adults. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study analyzed data from 2 waves of the COVID States Project, a nonprobability web-based survey conducted between November 2, 2023, and January 8, 2024, and applied multiple linear regression models to estimate associations with irritability. Survey respondents were aged 18 years and older. ExposureSelf-reported social media use. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was score on the Brief Irritability Test (range, 5-30), with higher scores indicating greater irritability. ResultsAcross the 2 survey waves, there were 42 597 unique participants, with mean (SD) age 46.0 (17.0) years; 24 919 (58.5%) identified as women, 17 222 (40.4%) as men, and 456 (1.1%) as nonbinary. In the full sample, 1216 (2.9%) identified as Asian American, 5939 (13.9%) as Black, 5322 (12.5%) as Hispanic, 624 (1.5%) as Native American, 515 (1.2%) as Pacific Islander, 28 354 (66.6%) as White, and 627 (1.5%) as other (ie, selecting the other option prompted the opportunity to provide a free-text self-description). In total, 33 325 (78.2%) of the survey respondents reported daily use of at least 1 social media platform, including 6037 (14.2%) using once a day, 16 678 (39.2%) using multiple times a day, and 10 610 (24.9%) using most of the day. Frequent use of social media was associated with significantly greater irritability in univariate regression models (for more than once a day vs never, 1.43 points [95% CI, 1.22-1.63 points]; for most of the day vs never, 3.37 points [95% CI, 3.15-3.60 points]) and adjusted models (for more than once a day, 0.38 points [95% CI, 0.18-0.58 points]; for most of the day, 1.55 points [95% CI, 1.32-1.78 points]). These associations persisted after incorporating measures of political engagement. Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of 42 597 US adults, irritability represented another correlate of social media use that merits further characterization, in light of known associations with depression and suicidality.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2241886 2241887
PAR ID:
10582389
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
JAMA Network Open
Date Published:
Journal Name:
JAMA Network Open
Volume:
8
Issue:
1
ISSN:
2574-3805
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e2452807
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ImportanceGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly entered mainstream use in the US, but its association with mental health has not been characterized. ObjectiveTo examine the associations of the extent and type of generative AI use among US adults with negative affective symptoms in a large, nationally representative sample. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study used data from a 50-state US internet nonprobability survey conducted between April and May 2025. Survey respondents were aged 18 years and older. Data were analyzed in August 2025. ExposureParticipants self-reported generative AI and social media use. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe outcome of interest, negative affect, was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9). ResultsThere were 20 847 unique participants, with mean (SD) age 47.3 (17.1) years and 10 327 (49.5%) female, 10 386 (49.8%) male, and 134 (0.6%) nonbinary participants; 2152 participants (10.3%) reported using AI at least daily, including 1053 participants (5.1%) who reported daily use and 1099 participants (5.3%) who reported use multiple times per day. Among participants who used daily or more frequently, 1033 (48.0%) reported use for work, 246 (11.4%) for school, and 1875 (87.1%) for personal applications. In survey-weighted regression models, daily or more frequent AI use was significantly more common among men, younger adults, those with higher education and income, and those in urban settings. Greater AI use was associated with greater levels of depressive symptoms in sociodemographic-adjusted regression models: (daily use: β = 1.08 [95% CI, 0.55-1.62]; multiple times per day: β = 0.86 [95% CI, 0.35-1.37]) compared with nonuse, and with greater likelihood of reporting at least moderate depressive symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 1.29 [95% CI, 1.15-1.46]); similar patterns were observed for anxiety and irritability. The highest estimates were observed among individuals using AI for personal use (β = 0.31 [95% CI, 0.10-0.52]) and those aged 25 to 44 years (β = 1.22 [95% CI, 0.70-1.74]) or 45 to 64 years (β = 1.38 [95% CI, 0.72-2.05]). Conclusions and RelevanceThis survey study found that AI use was significantly associated with greater depressive symptoms, with magnitude of differences varying by age group. Further work is needed to understand whether these associations are causal and explain heterogeneous effects. 
    more » « less
  2. ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has been notable for the widespread dissemination of misinformation regarding the virus and appropriate treatment. ObjectiveTo quantify the prevalence of non–evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 in the US and the association between such treatment and endorsement of misinformation as well as lack of trust in physicians and scientists. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis single-wave, population-based, nonprobability internet survey study was conducted between December 22, 2022, and January 16, 2023, in US residents 18 years or older who reported prior COVID-19 infection. Main Outcome and MeasureSelf-reported use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, endorsing false statements related to COVID-19 vaccination, self-reported trust in various institutions, conspiratorial thinking measured by the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale, and news sources. ResultsA total of 13 438 individuals (mean [SD] age, 42.7 [16.1] years; 9150 [68.1%] female and 4288 [31.9%] male) who reported prior COVID-19 infection were included in this study. In this cohort, 799 (5.9%) reported prior use of hydroxychloroquine (527 [3.9%]) or ivermectin (440 [3.3%]). In regression models including sociodemographic features as well as political affiliation, those who endorsed at least 1 item of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation were more likely to receive non–evidence-based medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.86; 95% CI, 2.28-3.58). Those reporting trust in physicians and hospitals (adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98) and in scientists (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) were less likely to receive non–evidence-based medication. Respondents reporting trust in social media (adjusted OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.00-2.87) and in Donald Trump (adjusted OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.34-3.78) were more likely to have taken non–evidence-based medication. Individuals with greater scores on the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale were more likely to have received non–evidence-based medications (unadjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13). Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of US adults, endorsement of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of trust in physicians or scientists, conspiracy-mindedness, and the nature of news sources were associated with receiving non–evidence-based treatment for COVID-19. These results suggest that the potential harms of misinformation may extend to the use of ineffective and potentially toxic treatments in addition to avoidance of health-promoting behaviors. 
    more » « less
  3. ImportanceMarked elevation in levels of depressive symptoms compared with historical norms have been described during the COVID-19 pandemic, and understanding the extent to which these are associated with diminished in-person social interaction could inform public health planning for future pandemics or other disasters. ObjectiveTo describe the association between living in a US county with diminished mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic and self-reported depressive symptoms, while accounting for potential local and state-level confounding factors. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study used 18 waves of a nonprobability internet survey conducted in the United States between May 2020 and April 2022. Participants included respondents who were 18 years and older and lived in 1 of the 50 US states or Washington DC. Main Outcome and MeasureDepressive symptoms measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); county-level community mobility estimates from mobile apps; COVID-19 policies at the US state level from the Oxford stringency index. ResultsThe 192 271 survey respondents had a mean (SD) of age 43.1 (16.5) years, and 768 (0.4%) were American Indian or Alaska Native individuals, 11 448 (6.0%) were Asian individuals, 20 277 (10.5%) were Black individuals, 15 036 (7.8%) were Hispanic individuals, 1975 (1.0%) were Pacific Islander individuals, 138 702 (72.1%) were White individuals, and 4065 (2.1%) were individuals of another race. Additionally, 126 381 respondents (65.7%) identified as female and 65 890 (34.3%) as male. Mean (SD) depression severity by PHQ-9 was 7.2 (6.8). In a mixed-effects linear regression model, the mean county-level proportion of individuals not leaving home was associated with a greater level of depression symptoms (β, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.57-3.58) after adjustment for individual sociodemographic features. Results were similar after the inclusion in regression models of local COVID-19 activity, weather, and county-level economic features, and persisted after widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccination. They were attenuated by the inclusion of state-level pandemic restrictions. Two restrictions, mandatory mask-wearing in public (β, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15-0.30) and policies cancelling public events (β, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.51), demonstrated modest independent associations with depressive symptom severity. Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, depressive symptoms were greater in locales and times with diminished community mobility. Strategies to understand the potential public health consequences of pandemic responses are needed. 
    more » « less
  4. ImportanceTrust in physicians and hospitals has been associated with achieving public health goals, but the increasing politicization of public health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic may have adversely affected such trust. ObjectiveTo characterize changes in US adults’ trust in physicians and hospitals over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic and the association between this trust and health-related behaviors. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study uses data from 24 waves of a nonprobability internet survey conducted between April 1, 2020, and January 31, 2024, among 443 455 unique respondents aged 18 years or older residing in the US, with state-level representative quotas for race and ethnicity, age, and gender. Main Outcome and MeasureSelf-report of trust in physicians and hospitals; self-report of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza vaccination and booster status. Survey-weighted regression models were applied to examine associations between sociodemographic features and trust and between trust and health behaviors. ResultsThe combined data included 582 634 responses across 24 survey waves, reflecting 443 455 unique respondents. The unweighted mean (SD) age was 43.3 (16.6) years; 288 186 respondents (65.0%) reported female gender; 21 957 (5.0%) identified as Asian American, 49 428 (11.1%) as Black, 38 423 (8.7%) as Hispanic, 3138 (0.7%) as Native American, 5598 (1.3%) as Pacific Islander, 315 278 (71.1%) as White, and 9633 (2.2%) as other race and ethnicity (those who selected “Other” from a checklist). Overall, the proportion of adults reporting a lot of trust for physicians and hospitals decreased from 71.5% (95% CI, 70.7%-72.2%) in April 2020 to 40.1% (95% CI, 39.4%-40.7%) in January 2024. In regression models, features associated with lower trust as of spring and summer 2023 included being 25 to 64 years of age, female gender, lower educational level, lower income, Black race, and living in a rural setting. These associations persisted even after controlling for partisanship. In turn, greater trust was associated with greater likelihood of vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.94; 95 CI, 4.21-5.80) or influenza (adjusted OR, 5.09; 95 CI, 3.93-6.59) and receiving a SARS-CoV-2 booster (adjusted OR, 3.62; 95 CI, 2.99-4.38). Conclusions and RelevanceThis survey study of US adults suggests that trust in physicians and hospitals decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic. As lower levels of trust were associated with lesser likelihood of pursuing vaccination, restoring trust may represent a public health imperative. 
    more » « less
  5. ImportanceLittle is known about the functional correlates of post–COVID-19 condition (PCC), also known as long COVID, particularly the relevance of neurocognitive symptoms. ObjectiveTo characterize prevalence of unemployment among individuals who did, or did not, develop PCC after acute infection. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study used data from 8 waves of a 50-state US nonprobability internet population-based survey of respondents aged 18 to 69 years conducted between February 2021 and July 2022. Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcomes were self-reported current employment status and the presence of PCC, defined as report of continued symptoms at least 2 months beyond initial month of symptoms confirmed by a positive COVID-19 test. ResultsThe cohort included 15 308 survey respondents with test-confirmed COVID-19 at least 2 months prior, of whom 2236 (14.6%) reported PCC symptoms, including 1027 of 2236 (45.9%) reporting either brain fog or impaired memory. The mean (SD) age was 38.8 (13.5) years; 9679 respondents (63.2%) identified as women and 10 720 (70.0%) were White. Overall, 1418 of 15 308 respondents (9.3%) reported being unemployed, including 276 of 2236 (12.3%) of those with PCC and 1142 of 13 071 (8.7%) of those without PCC; 8229 respondents (53.8%) worked full-time, including 1017 (45.5%) of those with PCC and 7212 (55.2%) without PCC. In survey-weighted regression models excluding retired respondents, the presence of PCC was associated with a lower likelihood of working full-time (odds ratio [OR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63-0.80]; adjusted OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.74-0.96]) and with a higher likelihood of being unemployed (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; adjusted OR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.02-1.48]). The presence of any cognitive symptom was associated with lower likelihood of working full time (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.56-0.88]; adjusted OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]). Conclusions and RelevancePCC was associated with a greater likelihood of unemployment and lesser likelihood of working full time in adjusted models. The presence of cognitive symptoms was associated with diminished likelihood of working full time. These results underscore the importance of developing strategies to treat and manage PCC symptoms. 
    more » « less