Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27021727›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2016

Internet use by pregnant women seeking pregnancy-related information: a systematic review.

Padaphet Sayakhot, Mary Carolan-Olah

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 189 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
189citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

189 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Social Media Misinformation about Pregnancy and COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Article

129 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Padaphet SayakhotCollege of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, St Albans Campus, Building 4C, McKechnie Street, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia. Padaphet.sayakhot@vu.edu.au.
Mary Carolan-OlahCollege of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, St Albans Campus, Building 4C, McKechnie Street, St Albans, VIC, 3021, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Internet has become one of the most popular sources of information for health consumers and pregnant women are no exception. The primary objective of this review was to investigate the ways in which pregnant women used the Internet to retrieve pregnancy-related information.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review to answer this question. In November 2014, electronic databases: Scopus, Medline, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed were searched for papers with the terms "Internet"; "pregnancy"; "health information seeking", in the title, abstract or as keywords. Restrictions were placed on publication to within 10 years and language of publication was restricted to English. Quantitative studies were sought, that reported original research and described Internet use by pregnant women.

resultsSeven publications met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Sample size ranged from 182 - 1347 pregnant women. The majority of papers reported that women used the Internet as a source of information about pregnancy. Most women searched for information at least once a month. Fetal development and nutrition in pregnancy were the most often mentioned topics of interest. One paper included in this review found that women with higher education were three times more likely to seek advice than women with less than a high school education, and also that single and multiparous women were less likely to seek advice than married and nulliparous women. The majority of women found health information on the Internet to be reliable and useful.

conclusionMost women did not discuss the information they retrieved from the Internet with their health providers. Thus, health providers may not be aware of potentially inaccurate information or mistaken beliefs about pregnancy, reported on the Internet. Future research is needed to address this issue of potentially unreliable information.

Indexed as

Information Seeking BehaviorAdolescentAdultConsumer Health InformationFemaleHumansInternetPregnancyPregnant PeopleYoung AdultAntenatal careInformationInternetPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID27021727
PMCPMC4810511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.