ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions have been a major stressor that has exacerbated mental health worldwide. Qualitative data play a unique role in documenting mental states through both language features and content. Text analysis methods can provide insights into the associations between language use and mental health and reveal relevant themes that emerge organically in open-ended responses. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this web-based longitudinal study on mental health during the early COVID-19 pandemic was to use text analysis methods to analyze free responses to the question, "Is there anything else you would like to tell us that might be important that we did not ask about?" Our goals were to determine whether individuals who responded to the item differed from nonresponders, to determine whether there were associations between language use and psychological status, and to characterize the content of responses and how responses changed over time. METHODS: A total of 3655 individuals enrolled in the study were asked to complete self-reported measures of mental health and COVID-19 pandemic-related questions every 2 weeks for 6 months. Of these 3655 participants, 2497 (68.32%) provided at least 1 free response (9741 total responses). We used various text analysis methods to measure the links between language use and mental health and to characterize response themes over the first year of the pandemic. RESULTS: Response likelihood was influenced by demographic factors and health status: those who were male, Asian, Black, or Hispanic were less likely to respond, and the odds of responding increased with age and education as well as with a history of physical health conditions. Although mental health treatment history did not influence the overall likelihood of responding, it was associated with more negative sentiment, negative word use, and higher use of first-person singular pronouns. Responses were dynamically influenced by psychological status such that distress and loneliness were positively associated with an individual's likelihood to respond at a given time point and were associated with more negativity. Finally, the responses were negative in valence overall and exhibited fluctuations linked with external events. The responses covered a variety of topics, with the most common being mental health and emotion, social or physical distancing, and policy and government. CONCLUSIONS: Our results identify trends in language use during the first year of the pandemic and suggest that both the content of responses and overall sentiments are linked to mental health.