ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2022
[Contraception in the German-language Wikipedia: a content and quality analysis].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Contraception on YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok : A content and quality analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdolescents and adults today often obtain information about contraception from the Internet, especially from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. This is because Google searches usually return Wikipedia entries as top hits. RESEARCH
aimAgainst this background, the aim of the current study is to systematically analyze for the first time the content and quality of Wikipedia articles on contraceptive methods. Five central quality dimensions are examined: the degree of correctness (research question RQ1), completeness (RQ2), neutrality (RQ3), comprehensibility (RQ4), and currency (RQ5) of the contraceptive information - and on this basis the overall quality of the articles (RQ6). MATERIALS AND
methodsA sample of all German-language Wikipedia articles on all contraceptive methods was formed (N = 25). These articles were analyzed by three independent, trained coders using a codebook that was developed based on the current state of the research and tested for reliability. Data analysis was performed using SPSS. The study is preregistered and all data, materials, and analysis scripts are publicly available.
resultsThe 25 Wikipedia articles on contraceptive methods were found to vary widely in content quality. While they showed good quality on average in terms of correctness (RQ1) and neutrality (RQ3), they scored mediocre in terms of completeness (RQ2), comprehensibility (RQ4), and currency (RQ5), resulting in moderate overall quality (RQ6). DISCUSSION: More research as well as practice measures are needed to further assess and improve the quality of contraceptive information on Wikipedia and in other social media in a more targeted way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.