Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29766400›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018

Social media in the REI clinic: what do patients want?

Darcy E Broughton, Allison Schelble, Kristina Cipolla, Michele Cho, Jason Franasiak, Kenan R Omurtag

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Social media's impact on patient provider choice.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Fertility education: what's trending on Instagram.Fertility research and practice · 2021
    Article
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

6 authors.

Darcy E BroughtonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Ave. Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA. d.broughtond@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1767-1017
Allison SchelbleDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Ave. Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA.
Kristina CipollaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Ave. Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA.
Michele ChoSeattle Reproductive Medicine, 1505 Westlake Ave. N. Suite 400, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.
Jason FranasiakReproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 140 Allen Rd., Basking Ridge, NJ, 07920, USA.
Kenan R OmurtagDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Ave. Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo elicit patient preferences for social media utilization and content in the infertility clinic.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional survey study conducted in three US fertility practices. Women presenting to the infertility clinic for an initial or return visit were offered an anonymous voluntary social media survey. The survey elicited patient perception of whether social media use in the infertility clinic is beneficial, and preferences regarding topics of interest.

resultsA total of 244 surveys were collected during the study period, of which 54.5% were complete. Instagram is a more popular platform than Twitter across all age groups. Use of both platforms varies by age, with patients ≥ 40 less likely to be active users. The majority of respondents felt that social media provided benefit to the patient experience in the infertility clinic (79.9%). "Education regarding infertility testing and treatment" and "Myths and Facts about infertility" were the most popular topics for potential posts, with 93.4 and 92.0% of patients endorsing interest respectively. The least popular topic was "Newborn photos and birth announcements," with only 47.4% endorsing interest. A little over half of respondents (56.3%) would feel comfortable with the clinic posting a picture of their infant. The vast majority of patients (96.2%) feel comfortable communicating electronically with their infertility clinic.

conclusionPatients are interested in the use of social media as a forum for patient education and support in the infertility clinic. Patient preferences regarding post topics should be carefully considered.

Indexed as

Social MediaAdultFemaleFertilization in VitroHumansInfertilityMalePatientsReproductive MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung AdultInfertilityInternetIn vitro fertilizationPatient outreachSocial media

Identifiers

PMID29766400
PMCPMC6063835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.