It takes a community to conceive: an analysis of the scope, nature and accuracy of online sources of health information for couples trying to conceive

Sophie G.E. Kedzior , Tina Bianco-Miotto , James Breen , Kerrilyn R. Diener , Martin Donnelley , Kylie R. Dunning , Megan A.S. Penno , John E. Schjenken , David J. Sharkey , Nicolette A. Hodyl , Tod Fullston , Maria Gardiner , Hannah M. Brown , Alice R. Rumbold
{"title":"It takes a community to conceive: an analysis of the scope, nature and accuracy of online sources of health information for couples trying to conceive","authors":"Sophie G.E. Kedzior ,&nbsp;Tina Bianco-Miotto ,&nbsp;James Breen ,&nbsp;Kerrilyn R. Diener ,&nbsp;Martin Donnelley ,&nbsp;Kylie R. Dunning ,&nbsp;Megan A.S. Penno ,&nbsp;John E. Schjenken ,&nbsp;David J. Sharkey ,&nbsp;Nicolette A. Hodyl ,&nbsp;Tod Fullston ,&nbsp;Maria Gardiner ,&nbsp;Hannah M. Brown ,&nbsp;Alice R. Rumbold","doi":"10.1016/j.rbms.2019.08.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examined the nature and accuracy of information available across online platforms for couples trying to conceive. A consumer simulation-based investigation of English websites and social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) was undertaken using common search terms identified in a pilot study. Claims about fertility and pregnancy health were then extracted from the results and analysed thematically. The accuracy of each claim was assessed independently by six fertility and conception experts, rated on a scale of 1 (not factual) to 4 (highly factual), with scores collated to produce a median rating. Claims with a median score &lt;<!--> <!-->3 were classified as inaccurate. The use of the terms 'trying to conceive' and '#TTC' were common identifiers on online platforms. Claims were extracted predominantly from websites (<em>n</em> = 89) rather than social media, with Twitter and Instagram comprising commercial elements and Facebook focused on community-based support. Thematic analysis revealed three major themes among the claims across all platforms: conception behaviour and monitoring, lifestyle and exposures, and medical. Fact-checking by the experts revealed that 40% of the information assessed was inaccurate, and that inaccuracies were more likely to be present in the conception behaviour and monitoring advice, the topics most amenable to modification. Since online information is a readily accessible and commonly utilized resource, there is opportunity for improved dissemination of evidence-based material to reach interested couples. Further cross-disciplinary and consumer-based research, such as a user survey, is required to understand how best to provide the 'trying to conceive' community with accurate information.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37973,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbms.2019.08.004","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405661819300115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

This study examined the nature and accuracy of information available across online platforms for couples trying to conceive. A consumer simulation-based investigation of English websites and social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) was undertaken using common search terms identified in a pilot study. Claims about fertility and pregnancy health were then extracted from the results and analysed thematically. The accuracy of each claim was assessed independently by six fertility and conception experts, rated on a scale of 1 (not factual) to 4 (highly factual), with scores collated to produce a median rating. Claims with a median score < 3 were classified as inaccurate. The use of the terms 'trying to conceive' and '#TTC' were common identifiers on online platforms. Claims were extracted predominantly from websites (n = 89) rather than social media, with Twitter and Instagram comprising commercial elements and Facebook focused on community-based support. Thematic analysis revealed three major themes among the claims across all platforms: conception behaviour and monitoring, lifestyle and exposures, and medical. Fact-checking by the experts revealed that 40% of the information assessed was inaccurate, and that inaccuracies were more likely to be present in the conception behaviour and monitoring advice, the topics most amenable to modification. Since online information is a readily accessible and commonly utilized resource, there is opportunity for improved dissemination of evidence-based material to reach interested couples. Further cross-disciplinary and consumer-based research, such as a user survey, is required to understand how best to provide the 'trying to conceive' community with accurate information.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
它需要一个社区来怀孕:对试图怀孕的夫妇的在线健康信息来源的范围、性质和准确性的分析
这项研究调查了在线平台上为想要怀孕的夫妇提供的信息的性质和准确性。使用在试点研究中确定的常见搜索词,对英语网站和社交媒体(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram)进行了基于消费者模拟的调查。然后从结果中提取有关生育能力和怀孕健康的说法,并对其进行主题分析。每一种说法的准确性都由六位生育和受孕专家独立评估,评分范围从1(不真实)到4(高度真实),分数整理后得出一个中位数。索赔中位数得分<3项被列为不准确。“试图怀孕”和“#TTC”是网络平台上常见的标识符。索赔主要来自网站(n = 89),而不是社交媒体,Twitter和Instagram包含商业元素,Facebook侧重于社区支持。专题分析揭示了所有平台索赔的三个主要主题:受孕行为和监测、生活方式和暴露以及医疗。专家们进行的事实核查显示,40%的评估信息是不准确的,而不准确的信息更有可能出现在受孕行为和监测建议中,而这些话题是最容易修改的。由于在线信息是一种容易获得和普遍利用的资源,因此有机会改进以证据为基础的材料的传播,使感兴趣的夫妇接触到这些材料。需要进一步的跨学科和基于消费者的研究,如用户调查,以了解如何最好地为“尝试构思”社区提供准确的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: RBMS is a new journal dedicated to interdisciplinary discussion and debate of the rapidly expanding field of reproductive biomedicine, particularly all of its many societal and cultural implications. It is intended to bring to attention new research in the social sciences, arts and humanities on human reproduction, new reproductive technologies, and related areas such as human embryonic stem cell derivation. Its audience comprises researchers, clinicians, practitioners, policy makers, academics and patients.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Telling donor-conceived children about their conception: Evaluation of the use of the Donor Conception Network children’s books The missed disease? Endometriosis as an example of ‘undone science’ Financing future fertility: Women’s views on funding egg freezing Ignoring international alerts? The routinization of episiotomy in France in the 1980s and 1990s
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1