Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32287266›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Pregnancy and health in the age of the Internet: A content analysis of online "birth club" forums.

Anna Wexler, Anahita Davoudi, Davy Weissenbacher, Rebekah Choi, Karen O'Connor, Holly Cummings, Graciela Gonzalez-Hernandez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Informational needs in vulvar cancer and precursor conditions: a social listening study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Reenvisioning Title X to Meet Early Pregnancy Needs.American journal of public health · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

7 authors.

Anna WexlerDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6723-9038
Anahita DavoudiDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Davy WeissenbacherDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Rebekah ChoiDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Karen O'ConnorDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7709-3813
Holly CummingsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Graciela Gonzalez-HernandezDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.

Funding

Social Media Mining for PharmacovigilanceR01LM011176 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ, GRACIELA · 2012 to 2021
$4.5M
Do-it-Yourself and Direct-to-Consumer Medicine and Science: Assessing the Public Health Issues and Regulatory GapsDP5OD026420 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI WEXLER, ANNA · 2018 to 2022
$2.0M
NIH HHS DP5 OD026420NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough studies report that more than 90% of pregnant women utilize digital sources to supplement their maternal healthcare, little is known about the kinds of information that women seek from their peers during pregnancy. To date, most research has used self-report measures to elucidate how and why women to turn to digital sources during pregnancy. However, given that these measures may differ from actual utilization of online health information, it is important to analyze the online content pregnant women generate.

objectiveTo apply machine learning methods to analyze online pregnancy forums, to better understand how women seek information from a community of online peers during pregnancy.

methodsData from seven WhatToExpect.com "birth club" forums (September 2018; January-June 2018) were scraped. Forum posts were collected for a one-year period, which included three trimesters and three months postpartum. Only initial posts from each thread were analyzed (n = 262,238). Automatic natural language processing (NLP) methods captured 50 discussed topics, which were annotated by two independent coders and grouped categorically.

resultsThe largest topic categories were maternal health (45%), baby-related topics (29%), and people/relationships (10%). While pain was a popular topic all throughout pregnancy, individual topics that were dominant by trimester included miscarriage (first trimester), labor (third trimester), and baby sleeping routine (postpartum period).

conclusionMore than just emotional or peer support, pregnant women turn to online forums to discuss their health. Dominant topics, such as labor and miscarriage, suggest unmet informational needs in these domains. With misinformation becoming a growing public health concern, more attention must be directed toward peer-exchange outlets.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousEmotionsFemaleHealth Information ExchangeHumansInternetMachine LearningMaternal HealthParturitionPeer GroupPregnancyPregnant PeopleSocial Support

Identifiers

PMID32287266
PMCPMC7156049

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.