Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Is Google Trends a useful tool for tracking mental and social distress during a public health emergency? A time-series analysis

View ORCID ProfileDuleeka Knipe, David Gunnell, Hannah Evans, Ann John, View ORCID ProfileDaisy Fancourt
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.18.21251966
Duleeka Knipe
aPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Duleeka Knipe
David Gunnell
aPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
bNational Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: D.J.Gunnell@bristol.ac.uk
Hannah Evans
cPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ann John
cPopulation Data Science, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daisy Fancourt
dDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daisy Fancourt
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Google Trends data are increasingly used by researchers as an indicator of population mental health, but few studies have investigated the validity of this approach.

Methods Relative search volumes (RSV) for the topics depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicide, suicidal ideation, loneliness, and abuse were obtained from Google Trends. We used graphical and time-series approaches to compare daily trends in searches for these topics against population measures of these outcomes recorded using validated scales (PHQ-9; GAD-7; UCLA-3) in a weekly survey (n=∼70,000) of the impact COVID-19 on psychological and social experiences in the UK population (12/03/2020 to 21/08/ 2020).

Results Self-reported levels of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, self-harm, loneliness and abuse decreased during the period studied. There was no evidence of an association between self-reported anxiety, self-harm, abuse and RSV on Google Trends. Trends in reported depression symptoms and suicidal ideation declined over the study period, whereas Google topic RSV increased (p=0.03 and p=0.04 respectively). There was some evidence that suicidal ideation searches preceded reported self-harm (p=0.05), but graphical evidence suggested this was an inverse association. However, there was statistical and graphical evidence that self-report and Google searches for loneliness (p<0.001) tracked one another.

Limitations No age/sex breakdown of Google Trends data are available. Survey respondents were not representative of the UK population and no pre-pandemic data were available.

Conclusion Google Trends data do not appear to be a useful indicator of changing levels of population mental health during a public health emergency, but may have some value as an indicator of loneliness.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This COVID-19 Social Study was funded by the Nuffield Foundation (WEL/FR-000022583), but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. The study was also supported by the MARCH Mental Health Network, funded by the Cross- Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation (ES/S002588/1), and by the Wellcome Trust (221400/Z/20/Z). DF was funded by the Wellcome Trust (205407/Z/16/Z). This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust through an Institutional Strategic Support Fund Award to the University of Bristol [204813] which supports DK. DK is also supported through the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of Bristol. DG is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, England. AJ and HE are supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_17211). The funders were not involved in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of the data or the write up of the manuscript.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The UCL Social Study survey was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee and all participants gave written informed consent.

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

Data on Google Trends are publicly available. UCL COVID Social Study data will be made publicly available following the end of the pandemic.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 19, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is Google Trends a useful tool for tracking mental and social distress during a public health emergency? A time-series analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Is Google Trends a useful tool for tracking mental and social distress during a public health emergency? A time-series analysis
Duleeka Knipe, David Gunnell, Hannah Evans, Ann John, Daisy Fancourt
medRxiv 2021.02.18.21251966; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.18.21251966
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Is Google Trends a useful tool for tracking mental and social distress during a public health emergency? A time-series analysis
Duleeka Knipe, David Gunnell, Hannah Evans, Ann John, Daisy Fancourt
medRxiv 2021.02.18.21251966; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.18.21251966

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Public and Global Health
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (172)
  • Anesthesia (51)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (456)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (83)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (160)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (192)
  • Epidemiology (5317)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (199)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (767)
  • Geriatric Medicine (81)
  • Health Economics (216)
  • Health Informatics (704)
  • Health Policy (364)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (224)
  • Hematology (100)
  • HIV/AIDS (166)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5971)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (368)
  • Medical Education (107)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (83)
  • Neurology (781)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (135)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (147)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (237)
  • Oncology (483)
  • Ophthalmology (155)
  • Orthopedics (40)
  • Otolaryngology (98)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (20)
  • Pathology (141)
  • Pediatrics (224)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (138)
  • Primary Care Research (99)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (868)
  • Public and Global Health (2051)
  • Radiology and Imaging (356)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (160)
  • Respiratory Medicine (288)
  • Rheumatology (96)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (75)
  • Sports Medicine (77)
  • Surgery (110)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (30)
  • Urology (40)