#misinformation: The perils of using social media for medical advice regarding infertility.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Human Fertility Pub Date : 2025-12-01 Epub Date: 2025-05-21 DOI:10.1080/14647273.2025.2506787
Tanveer Dhanoya, Kathleen O'Marcaigh, Tanvi Sambare, Ippokratis Sarris, Kugajeevan Vigneswaran
{"title":"#misinformation: The perils of using social media for medical advice regarding infertility.","authors":"Tanveer Dhanoya, Kathleen O'Marcaigh, Tanvi Sambare, Ippokratis Sarris, Kugajeevan Vigneswaran","doi":"10.1080/14647273.2025.2506787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To systematically evaluate the quality, credibility, accuracy, and readability of fertility-related content generated by users providing education, advice, and medical information on Twitter/X and Instagram. We selected Instagram and Twitter/X for data collection, as these platforms are commonly used by women of reproductive age. Using the terms 'fertility' and 'infertility', we collected posts both prospectively and retrospectively between April 21 and 28, 2024, using Keyhole and Brand Mentions. Posts were screened for eligibility, excluding non-English language posts, personal stories, advertisements, non-medical opinions, and peer-support posts. We assessed the accuracy, credibility, quality, and readability of the posts using validated instruments. Accuracy was evaluated based on current guidelines and the authors' expertise in infertility. Credibility was measured using a 10-point system that considered the source, context, currency, and editorial review. Quality was assessed using the 16-item DISCERN criteria with a five-point Likert scale. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Kincaid reading-ease test, which assigns a U.S. grade level to each post. Of the 15,214 posts identified, 939 were included in the final analysis. Fertility doctors generated 29% of the posts; others came from doctors of other specialties (11%), holistic practitioners (17%), and laypeople (39%). Seventy-four percent (74%) of posts did not cite sources or academic references, and 45% of posts contained inaccurate information. Only 11% of the posts were deemed credible. Of posts related to treatment, 19% were of high quality, while 53% of non-treatment posts met the same standard. Most posts (80%) were categorized as difficult to read based on readability scores. Only two posts (0.2%) were accurate, credible, high-quality, and easily readable. Social media posts about fertility often provide incomplete or misleading information, with a significant focus on naturopathy, dietary advice, and unproven theories about the effect of the COVID-19 vaccine on fertility. Clinicians and social media platforms must take responsibility for improving the accuracy and accessibility of health information online.</p>","PeriodicalId":13006,"journal":{"name":"Human Fertility","volume":"28 1","pages":"2506787"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Fertility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2025.2506787","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To systematically evaluate the quality, credibility, accuracy, and readability of fertility-related content generated by users providing education, advice, and medical information on Twitter/X and Instagram. We selected Instagram and Twitter/X for data collection, as these platforms are commonly used by women of reproductive age. Using the terms 'fertility' and 'infertility', we collected posts both prospectively and retrospectively between April 21 and 28, 2024, using Keyhole and Brand Mentions. Posts were screened for eligibility, excluding non-English language posts, personal stories, advertisements, non-medical opinions, and peer-support posts. We assessed the accuracy, credibility, quality, and readability of the posts using validated instruments. Accuracy was evaluated based on current guidelines and the authors' expertise in infertility. Credibility was measured using a 10-point system that considered the source, context, currency, and editorial review. Quality was assessed using the 16-item DISCERN criteria with a five-point Likert scale. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Kincaid reading-ease test, which assigns a U.S. grade level to each post. Of the 15,214 posts identified, 939 were included in the final analysis. Fertility doctors generated 29% of the posts; others came from doctors of other specialties (11%), holistic practitioners (17%), and laypeople (39%). Seventy-four percent (74%) of posts did not cite sources or academic references, and 45% of posts contained inaccurate information. Only 11% of the posts were deemed credible. Of posts related to treatment, 19% were of high quality, while 53% of non-treatment posts met the same standard. Most posts (80%) were categorized as difficult to read based on readability scores. Only two posts (0.2%) were accurate, credible, high-quality, and easily readable. Social media posts about fertility often provide incomplete or misleading information, with a significant focus on naturopathy, dietary advice, and unproven theories about the effect of the COVID-19 vaccine on fertility. Clinicians and social media platforms must take responsibility for improving the accuracy and accessibility of health information online.

#错误信息:使用社交媒体寻求不孕医疗建议的危险。
系统评估Twitter/X和Instagram上提供教育、建议和医疗信息的用户生成的生育相关内容的质量、可信度、准确性和可读性。我们选择Instagram和Twitter/X进行数据收集,因为这些平台是育龄女性常用的平台。我们使用“生育”和“不孕”这两个术语,收集了2024年4月21日至28日期间的前瞻性和回顾性帖子,使用了Keyhole和Brand提及。对帖子进行筛选,排除非英语帖子、个人故事、广告、非医学意见和同伴支持帖子。我们使用经过验证的工具评估了帖子的准确性、可信度、质量和可读性。准确性是根据目前的指南和作者在不孕症方面的专业知识进行评估的。可信度是用一个10分制系统来衡量的,该系统考虑了来源、背景、流通和编辑审查。质量评估使用16项辨别标准与五点李克特量表。可读性是用Flesch-Kincaid阅读难度测试来衡量的,该测试为每个职位分配了一个美国等级。在所查明的15 214个员额中,有939个列入最后分析。生育医生创造了29%的职位;其他来自其他专业的医生(11%),整体医生(17%)和非专业人士(39%)。74%的帖子没有引用来源或学术参考文献,45%的帖子包含不准确的信息。只有11%的帖子被认为是可信的。在与治疗有关的职位中,19%是高质量的,而53%的非治疗职位达到了相同的标准。根据可读性评分,大多数帖子(80%)被归类为难以阅读。准确、可信、高质量、易读的帖子只有两篇(0.2%)。社交媒体上关于生育的帖子往往提供不完整或误导性的信息,主要关注自然疗法、饮食建议以及关于COVID-19疫苗对生育影响的未经证实的理论。临床医生和社交媒体平台必须负责提高在线健康信息的准确性和可访问性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Fertility
Human Fertility OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Human Fertility is a leading international, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice in the areas of human fertility and infertility. Topics included span the range from molecular medicine to healthcare delivery, and contributions are welcomed from professionals and academics from the spectrum of disciplines concerned with human fertility. It is published on behalf of the British Fertility Society. The journal also provides a forum for the publication of peer-reviewed articles arising out of the activities of the Association of Biomedical Andrologists, the Association of Clinical Embryologists, the Association of Irish Clinical Embryologists, the British Andrology Society, the British Infertility Counselling Association, the Irish Fertility Society and the Royal College of Nursing Fertility Nurses Group. All submissions are welcome. Articles considered include original papers, reviews, policy statements, commentaries, debates, correspondence, and reports of sessions at meetings. The journal also publishes refereed abstracts from the meetings of the constituent organizations.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信