Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0280049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280049

Mental toll on working women during the COVID-19 pandemic: An exploratory study using Reddit data

Chengyue Huang 1, Anindita Bandyopadhyay 1, Weiguo Fan 1, Aaron Miller 2, Stephanie Gilbertson-White 3,*
Editor: Zhuo Chen4
PMCID: PMC9844921  PMID: 36649225

Abstract

COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented surge in unemployment associated with increased anxiety, stress, and loneliness impacting the well-being of various groups of people (based on gender and age). Given the increased unemployment rate, this study intends to understand if the different dimensions of well-being change across age and gender. By quantifying sentiment, stress, and loneliness with natural language processing tools and one-way, between-group multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using Reddit data, we assessed the differences in well-being characteristics for age groups and gender. We see a noticeable increase in the number of mental health-related subreddits for younger women since March 2020 and the trigger words used by them indicate poor mental health caused by relationship and career challenges posed by the pandemic. The MANOVA results show that women under 30 have significantly (p = 0.05) higher negative sentiment, stress, and loneliness levels than other age and gender groups. The results suggest that younger women express their vulnerability on social media more strongly than older women or men. The huge disruption of job routines caused by COVID-19 alongside inadequate relief and benefit programs has wrecked the economy and forced millions of women and families to the edge of bankruptcy. Women had to choose between being home managers and financial providers due to the countrywide shutdown of schools and day-cares. These findings open opportunities to reconsider how policy supports women’s responsibilities.

Introduction

Background

The pandemic has had a significant effect on unemployment in the United States. The unemployment rate reached its peak, which was the highest level since data collection began in 1948 (14.8% in April 2020), and then fell to a still-elevated level (6.7%) in December 2020 [1]. The effect of unemployment varies heavily across age and gender.

Young workers and women experienced relatively high unemployment rates during the pandemic [1]. Since the 1980s, the gender unemployment gap has been significantly narrowing but the COVID-19 crisis brought back gender inequalities [2]. While men and women had a roughly equal unemployment rate pre-pandemic, a Current Population Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the unemployment for women rose to 15.8% (2% above that of men).

In occupations where working from home is possible, the attrition and lay-off rates are much smaller [3]. Especially among professionals that cannot work from home, the number of employed people fell by 15% from February to April, and the unemployment rate rose by 9% [3]. Conversely, among jobs where working from home is possible, the number of employed people fell by 7% over the same period, and the unemployment rate rose by 5% [3]. Along with spiraling unemployment, according to a Statista report, a steep rise in social media activity was seen post-COVID-19 in the US (32% increase in March 2020 alone). COVID-19 (leading to social distancing) has shown an increase in the number of social media posts [4] of unfavorable feelings and harrowing personal stories [5]. These social media posts can be related to the negative experience or psychological distress caused by unemployment due to the COVID-19 pandemic [6].

The world has seen a profound change in communication and interaction since the rapid development of social networking sites. 90% of adults in the United States use at least one social media platform [7]. Social media has become a standard resource to understand and analyze the challenges of mental health issues [8]. The prevalent methods of characterizing and estimating mental health conditions are not only expensive but also significantly time-consuming. On the contrary, social media posts supplement traditional methods while also providing potential real-time information on a massive scale. Over the past decade, social media has been the platform to co-create, share, and exchange content (views, multimedia, message, etc.) Several reports have shown that people with mental illnesses, including psychotic disorders, anxiety, or depression, use social media to express their concerns and seek a common ground for information and help [9].

Related work

Social media analytics

Data mining and information retrieval from social media using customized computational functions help opinion mining [10] and sentiment analysis [1113]. With the help of computerized linguistic techniques, studies show the importance of text mining and how it is now possible to convert unstructured data into a structured form to obtain meaningful insights [1418]. The prevalence of social media entails the usage of social media analytics, the stages of the analytics process, the most frequent social media analytic techniques, and the ways analytics adds value to public health and mental well-being [19, 20].

Relevance of gender and age

Many social and cultural issues, such as social role expectations, discrimination, and violence, play a role in mental health and wellness. We cannot assume that distinctions are solely biological, or that they are solely cultural. Studies show that sex and gender play a significant role in the etiology, neurology, and therapy of mental diseases [21]. Hormones like estrogen and progesterone are known to have a major impact on mood, stress, and cognition. Studies have determined how these hormones may influence mental health factors ranging from the development of fear and anxiety to the risk of drug and alcohol use [22]. Gender-specific characteristics can majorly influence how treatment services are implemented [23].

Users’ gender and age are often missing or falsified on social media postings, and yet they are critical for many empirical analyses. Consequently, several attempts have been made to predict social media user gender and age from user postings automatically. For example, Sap, Maarten, et al. [24] finds that the most recent 100 posts of a user can be used along with a predictive lexicon (words and weights) to predict user age and gender with good accuracy. The lexicon was built based on word usage analytics using regression and classification models with Facebook, blogs, and Twitter data along with associated demographic labels.

Mental health assessment

Significant research has been done in calculating and identifying stress levels using text obtained from social media (tweets, comments, posts, etc.). For example, many researchers have used machine learning and deep learning approaches based on semantic analysis of social media texts from Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook [25].

Recent studies on detecting mental health issues due to the novel COVID-19 have used VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary and sentiment Reasoner) and LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) extensively. Researchers have used VADER and LIWC to get sentiment scores and other well-being measures to understand the change in sentiment over time and with news regarding the pandemic [2628]. Several other recent studies have used topic modeling and sentiment analysis to find the reasons behind mental health deterioration during the pandemic [2932].

Short texts like Reddit posts and tweets are challenging analyzing and determine sentiment as they have a restriction on the number of characters which leads to the use of acronyms, slangs, and misspellings by users [33]. The SentiStrength [34] and TensiStrength [35] algorithms were developed by Thelwall and colleagues to measure the intensity of the positive and negative words and the intensity of stress and relaxation using a lexical approach. SentiStrength was used by Constantin Orăsan to detect aggression in social media texts [36]. This paper proved that SentiStrength performs well compared to other complicated algorithms. It was also used by Durahim et al. to calculate the Gross National Happiness of Turkey using Twitter data [37]. The output of SentiStrength was compared to the happiness survey results published by the Turkish Statistical Institute, and they were similar when the whole country was considered.

Longitudinal Twitter data across 3 case studies was used to examine the impact of violence near or on college campuses [38]. Using a computerized text analysis method (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, LIWC), the Tweets dataset was annotated for the presence of event-related negative emotion words.

LIWC was used to quantify mental health illness (post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, bipolar disorder, and seasonal affective disorder (SAD)) using Twitter data [39] to demonstrate how rigorous application of simple natural language processing methods can yield insight into these mental health disorders and show linguistic signals in social media relevant to mental health.

A team developed a “social media depression index” [40] using crowd-sourced Twitter data of users diagnosed with clinical depression. This index can be utilized to measure the magnitude of depression in individuals. In addition, the same team investigates how tweets can be used as a predictor of postpartum depression [41]. They utilized measures such as social media engagement, tweet emotions, ego networks, and linguistic styles.

Another study [42] employed Twitter data to predict the onset of depression before it is reported. They first used crowd-sourced Twitter data from individuals diagnosed with clinical depression to calibrate measures from their tweets. Important measures that the team utilized were social activity, ego networks, relational and medical concerns, and religious involvement. A lexicon to detect an individual’s loneliness expressions on social media is also developed in 2019 [43].

Age- and gender-based impact on mental health

A March 2020 poll showed the basic difference in the COVID-19 impact on men and women, where women were more likely to report feeling worried and burdened with the economic and health concerns of their families [44]. The poll shows that 57% of mothers (compared to 32% fathers) with children under the age of 18 have reported deterioration of their mental health due to the pandemic.

Austrian research [45] showed that the impact of lockdown and the pandemic, in general, was most severe for younger adults (<35 years of age), women, unemployed, and low income. The results were based on an online survey conducted after four weeks of lockdown in Austria. They performed an analysis of variance (ANOVAs) and Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests to compare the difference in the impact of mental health indicators (quality of life (WHO-QOL BREF), well-being (WHO-5), depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), stress (PSS-10), and sleep quality (ISI)) based on age, gender, employment status, and net income. Another similar survey study conducted in Italy [46] associated women with a high prevalence of sleep disturbances during the lockdown.

A longitudinal study from the Netherlands [47] showed that the pandemic had different mental health impacts based on gender—women experienced more depression and men experienced more anxiety. This was a population-based cohort study, and they used several fixed-effects models to predict the number of depression and anxiety symptoms (Poisson fixed-effects models), and occurrence of major depressive disorders, and occurrence of generalized anxiety disorders (Probit model) given gender, age, level of education, and income. One of the key results stated that women in low-income categories have had significantly more depressive symptoms and disorders than men during the lockdown. They also observed married women experienced significantly worse depressive symptoms than men.

A study in Spain showed that in a sample of 551 adults (18–25 years), 130 of them showed some level of depression (mild to extremely severe) [48]. Another cross-sectional online survey study from Spain showed that the COVID-19 lockdowns and confinements impacted the younger adults more negatively than any other age group [49].

A 2000 study in Australia used the 1995 National Health Survey and the 1997 National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being of Adults data sets to predict three indicators of mental health and well-being (psychological well-being, diagnoses of mental disorders, and suicidal thoughts, plans, and failed attempts) [50]. They used Tobit models and concluded that unemployment is a significant factor in measuring these indicators and that the unemployed people exhibited poorer mental health than the employed.

Another group studied the role of gender on unemployment and mental well-being in Sweden and Ireland [51]. They used data from long-term unemployment project (LUP) for Sweden and Living in Ireland panel survey (LII) for Ireland. Using mixed effects models, they show that Sweden, like most other countries, had women suffering more from psychological distress, anxiety, and sleeping disorders due to unemployment than men. Ireland, on the other hand, is one of the very few countries where there are no significant gender differences in mental health indicators based on unemployment.

Objective

Prior research shows that most mental health studies are done through surveys, which are both time and resource intensive. There is a gap of research on identifying mental health issues among different age and gender groups due to unemployment during the pandemic using social media data.

In this paper, we focus on understanding and assessing the individuals’ well-being during the pandemic and document the impacts they experience in terms of psychological and mental health using freely available real-time social media data which captures key demographics instead of using time-consuming and costly survey-based data. We aim to identify if mental health issues were heightened due to age- and gender-based inequity in terms of unemployment during the pandemic.

Materials and methods

Data

Our data set comes from Reddit, one of the most popular sites in the US. As per a study by M. Jamnik et al. [52], it is validated that, unlike other paid sources, Reddit allows researchers to gather data and global responses of redditors. Reddit also organizes its data by subreddits [53, 54] which helps in filtering and targeting required topics easily. We use publicly available secondary data from Reddit and do not collect personal information during the text mining process. Moreover, as we do not interview or survey redditors whose posts are collected, there is no IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval or participant consent required. The collection and analysis method of this data complied with the terms and conditions of Reddit.

Apart from these, the two major advantages of Reddit over Facebook or Twitter are its redditor anonymity and freedom to write without word/character length limitations [5558] Due to these advantages, redditors can freely discuss mental health issues and seek help from one another [59].

Since we are interested in the people that are unemployed, we use the unemployment subreddit to collect our data. We collected posts from the unemployment subreddit for members of the subreddit who have lost their jobs due to the pandemic (i.e., from January 2020 to December 2020).

Our age and gender prediction results show that about 71% of unemployed redditors in our dataset are men. The proportion of unemployed redditors under 30 years is 59.12% and over 30 is 40.88%. According to Pew Research’s report about The Demographics of Reddit in 2016, people who use Reddit skew man (71%). They also found that the redditor base was 64% between the ages of 18 and 29, and another 29% were between the ages of 30 and 49. Only 6% of redditors were found to be between the ages of 50 and 64, and just a 1% was 65 or older. Our prediction results are remarkably like this report.

Data selection

We used 1:1 matching pair design to make sure each pair is matched on gender and age. In each group, there is equal representation of both gender and age groups. Data sampling was repeated three times to avoid selection bias. Finally, we had an unbiased sample of 1,500 redditors in each of the four focus groups: women under 30, women over 30, men under 30, and men over 30.

Methods

We studied the difference in three dimensions of well-being (i.e., stress, sentiment, and loneliness) during the pandemic among the four aforementioned groups of people (women under 30, women over 30, men under 30, and men over 30).

To quantify redditors’ well-being, we measure the sentiment score and stress score in each post as well as loneliness score for each redditor. Example posts of showing positive and negative sentiment, and stress and relax are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Example of posts displaying extremes of stress and sentiment.

Score Example posts
Low stress 4.00 Got a line cook job after 6 months of unemployment couldnt be more relieved!!!
High stress -4.00 I am extremely broke like to the point where it’s scary. But I feel like I need to start completely fresh. The world is scary right now and I feel like going backwards is never the right way to go… I am so stressed out from all of this and do not kno how to get it off my mind.
Positive Sentiment 4.00 These are adorable and I want them!
Negative Sentiment -4.00 I am also worried they will be able to come into my apartment unannounced now. I am really scared what is going to happen to me. I have nowhere else to go or any money at all.

Sentiment and stress/relax are measured for every Reddit post of each user. But loneliness is evaluated at a redditor level and not at a post level. So, no example for loneliness is shown here.

Sentiment

We use SentiStrength [34] which is a lexicon and rule-based sentiment analysis tool that is specifically attuned to sentiments expressed in short social media texts.

Stress

To measure stress, TensiStrength [35] is used. It uses a lexical approach and a set of rules to detect direct and indirect expressions of stress or relaxation.

A post gets a separate positive (1 to 5) and negative (-1 to -5) score, and their summation gives the overall score. Thus, the overall score ranges from -4 to 4. This method is true for calculating both sentiment and stress scores.

Loneliness

We applied a pre-trained data-driven machine learning model to detect an individual’s loneliness expression in posts [43]. High value means an elevated level of loneliness.

MANOVA test

A one-way, between-group MANOVA [60] is conducted to examine difference in well-being measures between four different gender and age groups. There are three dependent variables: sentiment, stress, and loneliness.

We use Wilks’ lambda test statistic to test if there are differences in age and gender group means for the combination of dependent variables. To determine how the dependent variables differ for the independent gender and age groups we run multiple (three in our case) univariate ANOVAs (analysis of variance) [61, 62]. Finally, we follow-up the significant ANOVA tests with Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) post-hoc tests [63] to check if the well-being measures are significantly different between each gender and age group.

Results

As per our analysis, women are more expressive about their experiences of affected by unemployment during the pandemic. The number of posts in mental health subreddits increased markedly for women irrespective of their age from April 2020 (Fig 1). Upon deepening our research, we can see a striking difference in the number of posts under mental health subreddit between the two age groups irrespective of gender (Fig 2).

Fig 1. Change in number of mental-health related posts in 2020 based on gender.

Fig 1

The orange line represents all unemployed women redditors and the blue represents all unemployed men redditors. Starting from March 2020, the number of mental health related subreddits increased noticeably for women.

Fig 2. Change in number of mental-health related posts in 2020 based on age and gender.

Fig 2

The orange and blue lines represent women and men respectively. The thin lines are for people below 30 years of age and the thick lines are for people above 30 years of age. Mental health related posts are far more by younger people than older, irrespective of gender.

From the word cloud (Fig 3), we can identify the most common areas of discussion on Reddit for each gender and age group. While men mainly discuss video games (“player”, “catacomb”, “warband”, “game”, “switch”, etc.), women chew over relationships (“husband”, “parent”), mental health problems (“anxiety”, “pain”, “therapist”, “abuse”), careers (“school”, “college”, “work”), and financial instability (“benefit”, “house”, “claim”, “fund”, “account”). This shows how the pandemic has intensified the already existing gender disparity.

Fig 3. Word cloud to compare the most frequent words among the four groups.

Fig 3

For the MANOVA tests, a 5% level of significance (alpha, α = 0.05) was used to reduce the risk of type 1 errors [64]. The multivariate test using the Wilks’ Lambda test statistic shows that there is a significant main effect of gender and age group on well-being measures with p-value <0.001.

The p-value (column "significance" in Table 2) for each well-being measure is <0.001 showing that there is a significant effect of gender and age groups on all the three well-being measures. We used a Bonferroni corrected alpha to account for the multiple ANOVA tests, which was assessed by dividing the conservative alpha of 0.05 by the number of dependent variables (Bonferroni corrected α = 0.05/3 = 0.0167). We can also see from the descriptive statistics table (Table 3) that women below 30 years of age have the lowest mean sentiment (the highest negative sentiment) and stress scores (the highest stress), and highest mean loneliness score compared to other gender and age groups. This means that younger women experienced higher negative sentiment, stress, and loneliness than all other gender and age groups.

Table 2. Univariate ANOVA tests.

Dependent Variables df F significance
Sentiment 3 1.134 <0.001
Stress 3 1.520 <0.001
Loneliness 3 3.925 <0.001

df–degrees of freedom, F–value of the F-statistic.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics.

Dependent Variables Labels Mean
Women <30 -0.04
Sentiment: Women >30 -0.00
(-4 to 4) Men <30 0.01
Men >30 0.02
Women <30 -0.40
Stress: Women >30 -0.37
(-4 to 4) Men <30 -0.33
Men >30 -0.33
Women <30 0.44
Loneliness Women >30 0.35
(0 to infinity) Men <30 0.35
Men >30 0.33

The results of MANOVA (Table 4) indicate the significant changes in sentiment, stress, and loneliness levels for separate groups of people. For sentiment, we see that the mean sentiment score is statistically significantly different between women below 30 and men of all ages. For stress, we find equivalent results as sentiment with the addition of the mean stress score being statistically significantly different between women and men above 30 years of age. For loneliness as well we see equivalent results as sentiment with the addition of the mean loneliness score is statistically significantly different between women below and above 30 years of age.

Table 4. Multiple comparisons using Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests.

Dependent variables Group I Group J Mean difference (I-J)
Sentiment: (-4 to 4) Women <30 Women >30 -0.037
Men <30 -0.055*
Men >30 -0.061*
Women >30 Men <30 -0.017
Men >30 -0.024
Men <30 Men >30 -0.006
Stress: (-4 to 4) Women <30 Women >30 -0.027
Men <30 -0.061*
Men >30 -0.069*
Women >30 Men <30 -0.034
Men >30 -0.042*
Men <30 Men >30 -0.008
Loneliness: (0 to infinity) Women <30 Women >30 0.095*
Men <30 0.091*
Men >30 0.115*
Women >30 Men <30 -0.003
Men >30 0.020
Men <30 Men >30 0.023

The mean difference values marked with asterisk (*) are statistically significant (p-value < α).

Discussion

The key findings of the study were that women have been more vocal about their experiences with unemployment throughout the pandemic and while men used social media (Reddit) to talk about video games, women were more interested in talking about employment, mental health issues, and financial security, revealing a widening gender gap. The MANOVA tests also revealed that women (particularly those under 30) experience much higher negative sentiment, stress, and loneliness than men of similar ages.

Based on our analysis, women younger than 30 may be the most psychologically impacted group during the pandemic. Their negative sentiment, stress, and loneliness levels are significantly higher than other groups, especially men.

The United States recorded its highest unemployment rate of 14.8% in April 2020 [1].

The rate of unemployment for women in the United States increased from 3.4% in February 2020 to 15.7% in April 2020, which was a higher spike than that for men (4.1% to 13.3% over this period) [65]. As per a policy brief by the United Nations [66], women will be the hardest hit in every aspect (health, economy, social safety, etc.) during this pandemic simply by the virtue of their gender. Indeed, Fig 1 shows that women post more frequently in the mental health subreddit. Additionally, Fig 3 demonstrates the wide range of topics where women express their concern and worry.

A response to the escalated rate of unemployment among young workers [67] is the increase in the number of social media activity and chatter, as evident from Fig 2. As per an October 2020 report by the Economic Policy Institute, the unemployment rate for young workers in the United States has increased from 8.4% to 24.4% from Spring 2019 to Spring 2020. While it is only 2.8% to 11.3% for the older age group.

Therefore, the results of this study are not surprising given the higher unemployment rate of young workers and women during the pandemic.

A report by the Center for American Progress revealed that over four times as many women as men dropped out of the labor force, with 865,000 women compared to 216,000 men [68]. This confirms forecasts that the COVID-19 pandemic would have a devastating impact on women, as well as the ensuing childcare and educational issues.

According to a March 2020 NASEM survey, difficulties caused by the pandemic had a negative impact on women. Of those who responded, 28% said their workload had increased, while 25% said their productivity had deteriorated [69]. Two-thirds of those polled reported negative effects on their personal well-being, including their mental and physical health. The report further urged that woman academic scientists would profit if universities and workplaces implemented policies such as extending grants and expanding the period required for attaining a tenure—tactics that provide women more time to care for their families without jeopardizing their careers.

To address the widening gender gap resulting from the pandemic, gender-responsive policies and budgets are imperative. To mitigate the negative impacts, it is essential to provide well-designed fiscal policies to supplement incomes and employment [70]. Also, improving the social protection systems for women, like paid leaves and coverage, will make them financially stable and reduce the discontinuation of their careers [71].

Comparison with prior work

Factors associated with psychological distress during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic on the predominantly general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis [72]. This paper summarizes the results of a time-consuming and costly survey-based study. It made a similar conclusion with us: women and young workers are significantly affected more in terms of well-being during the pandemic. We not only used more advanced NLP methods but also implemented temporal analysis. Our study is more cost and time-effective than surveys since we use publicly available Reddit posts that are not limited to a certain demographic population.

Social Media Insights into US Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Longitudinal Analysis of Twitter Data [29]. This paper studies the negative effect of the pandemic on the general population with Twitter data. Our study focuses on the section that has undergone a transition in work culture or has lost their jobs due to this pandemic. Moreover, our study targets to identify the most vulnerable and the ones seeking support through Reddit posts. We measured not only sentiment, but also stress, loneliness, and several posts in mental health-related subreddits. The advantage of Reddit posts over tweets is that Reddit has no word/character limitation making it extremely helpful for redditors to freely pen down their emotions and helplessness.

Limitations

The limitations of our work include that redditors may not be representative of all demographic segments (based on age, gender, occupation, cultural background, and family status) of the population. Social media data also poses the threat of selection bias. Regardless how widely used Reddit is, social media data might not represent the entire real-world population. As we mentioned earlier when discussing the data we used, Reddit has particular biases in its user population, especially in gender and age. To solve this problem, we should collect data from other social media sources like Twitter, which have a much broader user base. In the future, we would replicate our analysis on the Twitter data and make comparisons between users from two different social media sites. Another limitation is that currently, we have gender, age, and employment status as the only demographics of the redditors. Future investigations should extract information on location, industry, and personality as well.

Conclusions

This study uses Reddit data instead of survey data which is both cost-effective and time efficient. Unlike other social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, Reddit enables Redditors (i.e., Reddit users) to have an honest discussion about mental health disorders while also protecting their identity and any potential social discrimination.

The results and approach of this study can be used to evaluate the psychological costs of pandemic-related prevention measures like lockdowns and closures on vulnerable groups like the young and women labor forces. Since these data are available in real-time and the posts of the high-risk redditors can be tracked over time, we can measure the indirect costs or benefits of the pandemic and associated prevention efforts. This will also help target the sections of the population that might be most impacted and evaluate policy measures to improve social protection systems as they are rolled out. It is also advisable that health care providers may want to be attuned to the mental health impacts of unemployment & work from home.

Supporting information

S1 Data. This file contains the minimal data set required to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript.

(CSV)

Data Availability

All relevant data are in the Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Falk G, Romero P, Nicchitta I, et al. Unemployment Rates During the COVID-19 Pandemic; 2021, Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report R46554. Available from: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46554
  • 2.Vandenbroucke G, Zhu H. Unequal Pink Slips? Gender and the Risk of Unemployment. The Regional Economist. 2018;26(2):4. Available from: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:fip:fedlre:00182. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dey M, Frazis H, Loewenstein MA, et al. Ability to work from home: evidence from two surveys and implications for the labor market in the COVID-19 pandemic. Monthly Labor Review. 2020; p. 1–19. Available from: 10.21916/mlr.2020.14. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Preece J. Empathic Communities: Reaching out across the Web. Interactions. 1998;5(2):32–43. doi: 10.1145/274430.274435 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Jones NM, Wojcik SP, Sweeting J, et al. Tweeting negative emotion: An investigation of Twitter data in the aftermath of violence on college campuses. Psychol Methods. 2016;21(4):526–541. doi: 10.1037/met0000099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Pérez-Escoda A, Jiménez-Narros C, Perlado-Lamo-De-Espinosa M, et al. Social Networks’ Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain: Health Media vs. Healthcare Professionals. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(14):5261–5261. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Duggan M, Smith A; 2013. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/12/30/social-media-update-2013/
  • 8.Conway M, O’Connor D. Social Media, Big Data, and Mental Health: Current Advances and Ethical Implications. Curr Opin Psychol. 2016. Jun;9:77–82. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.01.004 ; PMCID: PMC4815031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.De Choudhury M., & De S. (2014). Mental Health Discourse on reddit: Self-Disclosure, Social Support, and Anonymity. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 8(1), 71–80. 10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14526 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Robinson R., Goh T., & Zhang R. (2012). Textual factors in online product reviews: a foundation for a more influential approach to opinion mining. Electronic Commerce Research, 12, 301–330. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Alsayat A. and Elmitwally N., 2020. A comprehensive study for Arabic sentiment analysis (challenges and applications). Egyptian Informatics Journal, 21(1), pp.7–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Al-Twairesh N. and Al-Negheimish H., 2019. Surface and deep features ensemble for sentiment analysis of arabic tweets. IEEE Access, 7, pp.84122–84131. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hung M., Lauren E., Hon E.S., Birmingham W.C., Xu J., Su S., et al., 2020. Social network analysis of COVID-19 sentiments: Application of artificial intelligence. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(8), p.e22590. doi: 10.2196/22590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yang L., Geng X. and Liao H., 2016. A web sentiment analysis method on fuzzy clustering for mobile social media users. EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, 2016(1), pp.1–13. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grimes, S., 2014. Unstructured data and the 80 percent rule (2008). Clarabridge, Bridgepoints. Available from: http://breakthroughanalysis.com/2008/08/01/unstructured-data-and-the-80-percent-rule/
  • 16.Hung J.L. and Zhang K., 2012. Examining mobile learning trends 2003–2008: A categorical meta-trend analysis using text mining techniques. Journal of Computing in Higher education, 24(1), pp.1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Feldman R. and Dagan I., 1995, August. Knowledge Discovery in Textual Databases (KDT). In KDD (Vol. 95, pp. 112–117). [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rajman M. and Besançon R., 1998. Text mining: natural language techniques and text mining applications. In Data mining and reverse engineering (pp. 50–64). Springer, Boston, MA. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fan W. and Gordon M.D., 2014. The power of social media analytics. Communications of the ACM, 57(6), pp.74–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fan W., Wallace L., Rich S. and Zhang Z., 2006. Tapping the power of text mining. Communications of the ACM, 49(9), pp.76–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.The Impact of Age and Gender on Mental Health; 2020. Available from: https://www.mcleanhospital.org/essential/impact-age-and-gender-mental-health.
  • 22.Zender R. and Olshansky E., 2009. Women’s mental health: depression and anxiety. Nursing Clinics, 44(3), pp.355–364. doi: 10.1016/j.cnur.2009.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Green C.A., 2006. Gender and use of substance abuse treatment services. Alcohol Research & Health, 29(1), p.55. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sap M., Park G., Eichstaedt J., Kern M., Stillwell D., Kosinski M., et al., 2014, October. Developing age and gender predictive lexica over social media. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1146–1151). [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Stieglitz S. and Dang-Xuan L., 2013. Social media and political communication: a social media analytics framework. Social network analysis and mining, 3(4), pp.1277–1291. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hutto C. and Gilbert E., 2014, May. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media (Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 216–225). [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bradley, M.M. and Lang, P.J., 1999. Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings (Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 25–36). Technical report C-1, the center for research in psychophysiology, University of Florida.
  • 28.Pennebaker J.W., Francis M.E. and Booth R.J., 2001. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2001. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 71(2001), p.2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Valdez D., Ten Thij M., Bathina K., Rutter L.A. and Bollen J., 2020. Social media insights into US mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal analysis of Twitter data. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(12), p.e21418. doi: 10.2196/21418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chandrasekaran R., Mehta V., Valkunde T. and Moustakas E., 2020. Topics, trends, and sentiments of tweets about the COVID-19 pandemic: Temporal infoveillance study. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(10), p.e22624. doi: 10.2196/22624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Boon-Itt S. and Skunkan Y., 2020. Public perception of the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter: sentiment analysis and topic modeling study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 6(4), p.e21978. doi: 10.2196/21978 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lwin M.O., Lu J., Sheldenkar A., Schulz P.J., Shin W., Gupta R. et al., 2020. Global sentiments surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter: analysis of Twitter trends. JMIR public health and surveillance, 6(2), p.e19447. doi: 10.2196/19447 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kumar, H.K., Harish, B.S., Kumar, S.A. and Aradhya, V.M., 2018, February. Classification of sentiments in short-text: an approach using mSMTP measure. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Machine Learning and Soft Computing (pp. 145–150).
  • 34.Thelwall M., 2017. The Heart and soul of the web? Sentiment strength detection in the social web with SentiStrength. In Cyberemotions (pp. 119–134). Springer, Cham. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Thelwall M., 2017. TensiStrength: Stress and relaxation magnitude detection for social media texts. Information Processing & Management, 53(1), pp.106–121. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Orǎsan C., 2018, August. Aggressive language identification using word embeddings and sentiment features. In Proceedings of the first workshop on trolling, aggression and cyberbullying (TRAC-2018) (pp. 113–119). [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Durahim A.O. and Coşkun M., 2015. # iamhappybecause: Gross National Happiness through Twitter analysis and big data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 99, pp.92–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jones N.M., Wojcik S.P., Sweeting J. and Silver R.C., 2016. Tweeting negative emotion: An investigation of Twitter data in the aftermath of violence on college campuses. Psychological methods, 21(4), p.526. doi: 10.1037/met0000099 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Coppersmith G., Dredze M. and Harman C., 2014, June. Quantifying mental health signals in Twitter. In Proceedings of the workshop on computational linguistics and clinical psychology: From linguistic signal to clinical reality (pp. 51–60). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.De Choudhury M., Counts S. and Horvitz E., 2013, May. Social media as a measurement tool of depression in populations. In Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM web science conference (pp. 47–56). [Google Scholar]
  • 41.De Choudhury M., Counts S. and Horvitz E., 2013, April. Predicting postpartum changes in emotion and behavior via social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3267–3276). [Google Scholar]
  • 42.De Choudhury M., Gamon M., Counts S. and Horvitz E., 2013, June. Predicting depression via social media. In Seventh international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Guntuku S.C., Schneider R., Pelullo A., Young J., Wong V., Ungar L., et al., 2019. Studying expressions of loneliness in individuals using twitter: an observational study. BMJ open, 9(11), p.e030355. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030355 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hamel L, Salganicoff A; 2020. Available from: https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/is-there-widening-gender-gap-in-coronavirus-stress/
  • 45.Pieh C., Budimir S. and Probst T., 2020. The effect of age, gender, income, work, and physical activity on mental health during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) lockdown in Austria. Journal of psychosomatic research, 136, p.110186. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gualano M.R., Lo Moro G., Voglino G., Bert F. and Siliquini R., 2020. Effects of Covid-19 lockdown on mental health and sleep disturbances in Italy. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(13), p.4779. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17134779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vloo A, Alessie RJM, Mierau JO; Lifelines Corona Research Initiative. Gender differences in the mental health impact of the COVID-19 lockdown: Longitudinal evidence from the Netherlands. SSM Popul Health. 2021. Jul 24;15:100878. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100878 ; PMCID: PMC8387764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ozamiz-Etxebarria N., Dosil-Santamaria M., Picaza-Gorrochategui M. and Idoiaga-Mondragon N., 2020. Stress, anxiety, and depression levels in the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in a population sample in the northern Spain. Cadernos de saude publica, 36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jiménez Ó., Sánchez-Sánchez L.C. and García-Montes J.M., 2020. Psychological impact of COVID-19 confinement and its relationship with meditation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), p.6642. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186642 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Flatau P., Galea J. and Petridis R., 2000. Mental health and wellbeing and unemployment. Australian Economic Review, 33(2), pp.161–181. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Strandh M., Hammarström A., Nilsson K., Nordenmark M. and Russel H., 2013. Unemployment, gender and mental health: the role of the gender regime. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(5), pp.649–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01517.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Jamnik M.R. and Lane D.J., 2017. The use of Reddit as an inexpensive source for high-quality data. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 22(1), p.5. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Olson R.S. and Neal Z.P., 2015. Navigating the massive world of reddit: Using backbone networks to map user interests in social media. PeerJ Computer Science, 1, p.e4. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Low D.M., Rumker L., Talkar T., Torous J., Cecchi G. and Ghosh S.S., 2020. Natural language processing reveals vulnerable mental health support groups and heightened health anxiety on reddit during covid-19: Observational study. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(10), p.e22635. doi: 10.2196/22635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.De Choudhury M. and De S., 2014, May. Mental health discourse on reddit: Self-disclosure, social support, and anonymity. In Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Barney L.J., Griffiths K.M. and Banfield M.A., 2011. Explicit and implicit information needs of people with depression: a qualitative investigation of problems reported on an online depression support forum. BMC psychiatry, 11(1), pp.1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Newman M.W., Lauterbach D., Munson S.A., Resnick P. and Morris M.E., 2011, March. It’s not that I don’t have problems, I’m just not putting them on Facebook: challenges and opportunities in using online social networks for health. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 341–350). [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Park J.Y., Howren A.M., Davidson E. and De Vera M.A., 2020. Insights on mental health when living with rheumatoid arthritis: a descriptive qualitative study of threads on the Reddit website. BMC rheumatology, 4(1), pp.1–9. doi: 10.1186/s41927-020-00163-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Park A. and Conway M., 2018. Harnessing reddit to understand the written-communication challenges experienced by individuals with mental health disorders: analysis of texts from mental health communities. Journal of medical Internet research, 20(4), p.e8219. doi: 10.2196/jmir.8219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.French A., Macedo M., Poulsen J., Waterson T. and Yu A., 2008. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). [Google Scholar]
  • 61.St L. and Wold S., 1989. Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Chemometrics and intelligent laboratory systems, 6(4), pp.259–272. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Huberty C. J., & Morris J. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 302–308. 10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.302 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Abdi H. and Williams L.J., 2010. Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. Encyclopedia of research design, 3(1), pp.1–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Cohen B. Explaining Psychological Statistics. Hoboken, New Jersey, United States: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kochhar R, Bennett J, S U. labor market inches back from the COVID-19 shock, but recovery is far from complete. Accessed; 2021. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/14/u-s-labor-market-inches-back-from-the-covid-19-shock-but-recovery-is-far-from-complete/
  • 66.United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. In: General’s policy brief: The impact of COVID-19 on Available from: https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/Headquarters/Attachments/Sections/Library/Publications/2020/Policy-brief-The-impact-of-COVID-19-on-women-en.pdf
  • 67.Achdut N. and Refaeli T., 2020. Unemployment and psychological distress among young people during the COVID-19 pandemic: Psychological resources and risk factors. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(19), p.7163. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kashen J, Glynn SJ, Novello A. How COVID-19 Sent Women’s Workforce Progress Backward. Accessed: Center for American Progress; 2020. Available from: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2020/10/30/492582/covid-19-sent-womensworkforce-progress-backward/.
  • 69.National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021. The impact of COVID-19 on the careers of women in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Tang V, Imf A, Santiago, Undp Z, Khan, Women U; 2021. Available from: https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/covid19-special-notes/en-special-series-on-covid-19-gender-equality-and-covid-19.ashx
  • 71.Available from: https://www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/Gender-responsive-social-protection-during-covid-19-ENG.pdf
  • 72.Wang Y., Kala M.P. and Jafar T.H., 2020. Factors associated with psychological distress during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the predominantly general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 15(12), p.e0244630. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Zhuo Chen

10 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-16256Mental Toll on Working Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study Using Reddit DataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gilbertson-White,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 24 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhuo Chen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please include additional information about your dataset and ensure that you have included a statement specifying whether the collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions for the source of the data.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper used social media data to test whether there were significant different in people’s mental health in terms of unemployment during the COVID-19 epidemics. Nature language processing and MANOVA were adopted to test the hypotheses, and the results supported the arguments. The language is fluent with few spelling or grammar errors. The research topic is quite interesting and important.

However, there are several issues that I would like to mention:

1) One major concern I have is that the research data and results may not be able to answer all the research questions. The aim of this research was “to identify if mental health issues were heightened due to age- and gender-based inequity in terms of unemployment during the pandemic”. While the results showed that “that younger women express their vulnerability on social media more strongly than older women or men.” Men have been proved to be less likely to express their vulnerability. And even they are talking about games on social media platform, they may actually be experiencing huge stress at the same time. The authors should justify whether they measured the expressed health issues or the actual health issues.

2) One of the literature review part names “predicting user gender and age”. However, there is only one literature in that part was talking about predicting gender and age, other reviewed literatures were talking about the importance of related topic. More related literatures on “predicting user gender and age” should be reviewed or the authors could consider changing a sub-title.

3) Sharp pictures with higher resolution should be provided.

Reviewer #2: 1. Pg. 2, background – helpful to provide the 1948 unemployment rate number as a reference

2. Pg. 5, Objective – after reading this objective and the background, it seems that the authors are summarizing findings from existing studies but not addressing a clear research gap. It would be helpful if the authors could elaborate on the literature gaps or weaknesses of existing works and how this work could potentially help.

3. Pg. 5-6, data selection & comparison groups – is it a 1-to-1 match or propensity score matching? What are the three pairs? Those four groups seem naturally to be four pairs: 1) women under 30 vs. over 30; 2) men under 30 vs. over 30; 3) under 30 women vs. men; 4) over 30 women vs. men. Based on later sections, the authors seem to be using three dimensions (sentiment, stress, and loneliness), but they are still different from the definition of pairs. Elaborating on this could help remove confusion.

4. Pg. 7, results – figures have low resolutions. For example, figure 1 (original graph added as supplemental material) has a horizontal and vertical DPI of 96, which is lower than the 300-dpi standard journal requirements. I would suggest the authors regenerate those in higher resolutions to be legible. Besides, figures 1 and 2 did not provide any legends.

5. Pg. 7, results – “We used a Bonferroni corrected alpha was used to account for the multiple ANOVA tests,” – this is a grammatically wrong sentence (used appeared twice with unclear subjective). Please double-check the manuscript for such errors.

6. Pg. 7, results – “We can also see from the descriptive statistics table (Table 3)” – there are no statistical significance levels reported in Table 3, so these interpretations may not be statistically significant.

7. Pg. 9, principal results – “Unemployed and work from home redditors in 2020 are psychologically affected by the pandemic.” This statement is not supported by the results. To address this, the author could do a thematic analysis of texts mentioning “pandemic” in the reddits. A casual or association relationship could not be established because these reddits happened during the pandemic – concurrence does not mean causal relationships. Their scenarios could be heterogeneous and may not be uniformly influenced by the pandemic.

8. Pg. 10, limitations – another limitation is the digital world could not represent the entire world, both the coverage and depth of the messages. Still, a large group of people would not have regular access to the internet or prefer not to engage in social media discussions. The authors should mention the bias from the unobserved population. On the other hand, posts expressed on social media are edited versions of reality so that they could be exaggerated or distorted.

Reviewer #3: 1. In the "Data" section, the authors reported that they collected data from the unemployment subreddit and work from home subreddit. But in the next paragraph, the authors only reported about the time frame for collecting data from the unemployment subreddits. Please clarify the time frame and relevant details for collecting data from work from home subreddit.

2. In the "Data Selection" section, the authors mentioned that they sampled 1500 redditors in each of the four groups. Please add more details about how were these redditors sampled.

3. In the "Well-being Measurements" section, the authors reported that they used NLP tools to assess sentiment, stress and loneliness. How good are the validity of these tools? Please clarify if possible.

4. In general, the authors should be more explicit about their contribution to the existent literature.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0280049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280049.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Sep 2022

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have made the necessary changes.

2. In your Methods section, please include additional information about your dataset and ensure that you have included a statement specifying whether the collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions for the source of the data.

We have added the extra information as requested.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Done.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Done.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Done.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Done.

Comments to the Author

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:

This paper used social media data to test whether there were significant different in people’s mental health in terms of unemployment during the COVID-19 epidemics. Nature language processing and MANOVA were adopted to test the hypotheses, and the results supported the arguments. The language is fluent with few spelling or grammar errors. The research topic is quite interesting and important.

However, there are several issues that I would like to mention:

1. One major concern I have is that the research data and results may not be able to answer all the research questions. The aim of this research was “to identify if mental health issues were heightened due to age- and gender-based inequity in terms of unemployment during the pandemic”. While the results showed that “that younger women express their vulnerability on social media more strongly than older women or men.” Men have been proved to be less likely to express their vulnerability. And even they are talking about games on social media platform, they may actually be experiencing huge stress at the same time. The authors should justify whether they measured the expressed health issues or the actual health issues.

We have added a clarifying statement noting that we have measured only the expressed health issues and not the actual health issues.

2. One of the literature review part names “predicting user gender and age”. However, there is only one literature in that part was talking about predicting gender and age, other reviewed literatures were talking about the importance of related topic. More related literatures on “predicting user gender and age” should be reviewed or the authors could consider changing a sub-title.

We have changed the sub-title to emphasize the relevance of gender and age.

3. Sharp pictures with higher resolution should be provided.

We have added pictures with higher resolution.

Reviewer #2:

1. Pg. 2, background – helpful to provide the 1948 unemployment rate number as a reference

We have added the reference.

2. Pg. 5, Objective – after reading this objective and the background, it seems that the authors are summarizing findings from existing studies but not addressing a clear research gap. It would be helpful if the authors could elaborate on the literature gaps or weaknesses of existing works and how this work could potentially help.

We have added a paragraph under the “objective” section clearly stating the research gap and how our work can potentially help.

3. Pg. 5-6, data selection & comparison groups – is it a 1-to-1 match or propensity score matching? What are the three pairs? Those four groups seem naturally to be four pairs: 1) women under 30 vs. over 30; 2) men under 30 vs. over 30; 3) under 30 women vs. men; 4) over 30 women vs. men. Based on later sections, the authors seem to be using three dimensions (sentiment, stress, and loneliness), but they are still different from the definition of pairs. Elaborating on this could help remove confusion.

We apologize for the confusion. We have clarified the difference between pairs and dimensions by explicitly stating the four pairs and three dimensions used in this study.

4. Pg. 7, results – figures have low resolutions. For example, figure 1 (original graph added as supplemental material) has a horizontal and vertical DPI of 96, which is lower than the 300-dpi standard journal requirements. I would suggest the authors regenerate those in higher resolutions to be legible. Besides, figures 1 and 2 did not provide any legends.

We have added pictures with higher resolution.

5. Pg. 7, results – “We used a Bonferroni corrected alpha was used to account for the multiple ANOVA tests,” – this is a grammatically wrong sentence (used appeared twice with unclear subjective). Please double-check the manuscript for such errors.

We apologize for this error. We have made the correction.

6. Pg. 7, results – “We can also see from the descriptive statistics table (Table 3)” – there are no statistical significance levels reported in Table 3, so these interpretations may not be statistically significant.

We do not claim that it is statistically significant.

7. Pg. 9, principal results – “Unemployed and work from home redditors in 2020 are psychologically affected by the pandemic.” This statement is not supported by the results. To address this, the author could do a thematic analysis of texts mentioning “pandemic” in the reddits. A casual or association relationship could not be established because these reddits happened during the pandemic – concurrence does not mean causal relationships. Their scenarios could be heterogeneous and may not be uniformly influenced by the pandemic.

Since this is not the main focus of the paper, we have removed the sentence in question.

8. Pg. 10, limitations – another limitation is the digital world could not represent the entire world, both the coverage and depth of the messages. Still, a large group of people would not have regular access to the internet or prefer not to engage in social media discussions. The authors should mention the bias from the unobserved population. On the other hand, posts expressed on social media are edited versions of reality so that they could be exaggerated or distorted.

We have added a limitation that talks about this.

Reviewer #3:

1. In the "Data" section, the authors reported that they collected data from the unemployment subreddit and work from home subreddit. But in the next paragraph, the authors only reported about the time frame for collecting data from the unemployment subreddits. Please clarify the time frame and relevant details for collecting data from work from home subreddit.

Apologies for the confusion. We have removed work from home users from the study and mention of it from the manuscript.

2. In the "Data Selection" section, the authors mentioned that they sampled 1500 redditors in each of the four groups. Please add more details about how were these redditors sampled.

We used 1:1 matching pair design to make sure each pair is matched on gender and age. In each group, there is equal representation of both gender and age groups. Data sampling was repeated three times to avoid selection bias. Finally, we had an unbiased sample of 1,500 redditors in each of the four focus groups: women under 30, women over 30, men under 30, and men over 30.

3. In the "Well-being Measurements" section, the authors reported that they used NLP tools to assess sentiment, stress, and loneliness. How good are the validity of these tools? Please clarify if possible.

There are several studies mentioned in the manuscript that talk about these tools and their performances.

4. In general, the authors should be more explicit about their contribution to the existent literature.

We have added a paragraph under the “objective” section clearly stating the research gap and how our work can potentially help.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Zhuo Chen

3 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-16256R1Mental Toll on Working Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study Using Reddit DataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gilbertson-White,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The reviewers have agreed that your manuscript has met the criteria for publication but there are some minor issues to be addressed. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zhuo Chen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed majority questions raised by the Editor and reviewers. It would be more helpful if the authors could provide the location and brief summary for some of the modifications in the response letter in the future.

I am happy to recommend this manuscript for publication after more proof reading and format correction.

Reviewer #2: 1. Figures still need higher resolution and legends (maybe revised figures got lost in transmission?). I will defer to the journal editor and production team on how to address this.

2. Limitations: “Social media data also poses the threat of selection bias.” This one sentence may not be sufficient. Please make sure to elaborate a bit more on the “how”.

All other comments addressed. Thanks!

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 17;18(1):e0280049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280049.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


18 Dec 2022

Rebuttal Letter

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

There was only one reference that was from a website that is longer present, so we removed it. A few of the references did not show the hyperlinks correctly or had some sort of problem due to formatting. We made changes to all of them and now all the references should be valid and easily accessible. Hope this helps with this issue raised.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed majority questions raised by the Editor and reviewers. It would be more helpful if the authors could provide the location and brief summary for some of the modifications in the response letter in the future.

I am happy to recommend this manuscript for publication after more proof reading and format correction.

Thank you for the suggestion. We will keep this in mind for the future.

Reviewer #2:

1. Figures still need higher resolution and legends (maybe revised figures got lost in transmission?). I will defer to the journal editor and production team on how to address this.

We tried our best to address this issue and hopefully we have solved the problem of resolution this time. We have double checked the resolution and the legends in the figures.

2. Limitations: “Social media data also poses the threat of selection bias.” This one sentence may not be sufficient. Please make sure to elaborate a bit more on the “how”.

We added the following to the limitation section:

“Social media data also poses the threat of selection bias. Regardless how widely used Reddit is, social media data might not represent the entire real-world population. As we mentioned earlier when discussing the data we used, Reddit has particular biases in its user population, especially in gender and age.”

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

Decision Letter 2

Zhuo Chen

20 Dec 2022

Mental Toll on Working Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Study Using Reddit Data

PONE-D-22-16256R2

Dear Dr. Gilbertson-White,

I have reviewed your revised manuscript and response to the request for minor revisions. We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Zhuo Chen, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Zhuo Chen

3 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-16256R2

Mental toll on working women during the COVID-19 pandemic: An exploratory study using Reddit data

Dear Dr. Gilbertson-White:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Zhuo Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. This file contains the minimal data set required to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript.

    (CSV)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are in the Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES