Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34648038›Full record

ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2021

[Sexual health information on social media: a systematic scoping review].

Nicola Döring, Melisa Conde

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Pregnancy termination on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok: a content and quality analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. [Contraception on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok : A content and quality analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023
    Article
  6. [Contraception in the German-language Wikipedia: a content and quality analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    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

2 authors.

Nicola DöringInstitut für Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ehrenbergstraße 29, 98693, Ilmenau, Deutschland. nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de.
Melisa CondeInstitut für Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Ehrenbergstraße 29, 98693, Ilmenau, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation on sexual and reproductive health is increasingly disseminated via social media and reaches a large audience. RESEARCH

aimAgainst this background, the aim of this paper is to systematically summarize the international state of research on sexual health information on social media for the first time with a scoping review. Seven research questions were explored, relating to the amount (F1), methods (F2: content analysis, F3: quality analysis), and results (F4: providers, F5: target groups, F6: topics, F7: quality of information) of previous studies. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study follows the PRISMA framework for scoping reviews as well as the Open Science approach. It is preregistered, and all materials (codebook with reliability coefficients) and data (list of identified studies and coding of studies) are available on the Open Science Foundation server.

resultsA total of 69 studies with 72 data sets were identified, with more than half of the publications referring to YouTube (F1). Qualitative and quantitative methods of content analysis are used equally (F2) and quality analyses are rare (F3). Health laypersons dominate as the information providers (F4). The target groups are mostly unspecified (F5). The health information on social media examined in the previous studies covers a broad range of topics (F6). Where quality assessments were made, they tended to be negative (F7). DISCUSSION: More research is needed to better understand sexual and reproductive health information on social media and to promote its quality and constructive use.

Indexed as

Sexual HealthSocial MediaGermanyHumansReproducibility of ResultsSexual BehaviorDigital mediaHealth informationResearch synthesisSexual educationSexual health

Identifiers

PMID34648038
PMCPMC8550659

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.