This is what I look like after long hours on the Internet. But that does not mean I’m depressed.
And neither does the widely reported study in this week’s journal, Psychopathology, prove that long hours on the Web cause depression.
That’s because it’s an observational study – the kind that can’t prove causation – even if it can point to a statistical association. As the excellent UK site, Behind the Headlines, points out:
The study has several limitations and cannot prove that using the internet can lead to depression as reported in several newspapers:
* Cross-sectional studies can only investigate associations between variables because they cannot establish the temporal relationship between them, i.e. which happened first. It is possible that people use the internet more often because they are already depressed and withdrawn, not the other way round.
* The sample was not representative of UK internet users in general. Recruitment took place through social-networking sites, which not all people use, and hence has sampled a predominantly younger population with an average age of 21.
* Although the study used validated questionnaires to examine the outcomes of interest, all were self-completed so there may be some unavoidable inaccuracy. Also, a single questionnaire assessment cannot be taken as a definite diagnosis of either addiction or depression.
* The study has not been able to examine the wider personal, social, professional and health circumstances of the participants, and it is these factors that are likely to be the main influence on an individual’s mental health.
* Only 18 people were considered to have internet addiction, so examining associations between other factors in this small number of people is likely to involve some inaccuracy.
So let’s not get all depressed over long hours on the Web.
By the way, when did so many journalists (BBC, HealthDay, Reuters, Business Week, NY Daily News, LA Times, etc.) start reporting studies in the journal, Psychopathology?
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
pnschmidt
February 3, 2010 at 5:33 pmI did a project with Kaiser (google “eCare for Moods”) where we monitored patients with major depressive disorder via an on-line tool. The more depressed patients were, the more they interacted with the system, but they seemed to get better (and certainly got no worse). This offers a data point to contradict any causal relationship. My system only engaged patients once a week and so did not dominate their internet use. What the Psychopathology study does suggest is that on-line depression management makes sense: depressed patients can be engaged on-line.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like