Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35507551›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

Typology of content warnings and trigger warnings: Systematic review.

Ashleigh Charles, Laurie Hare-Duke, Hannah Nudds, Donna Franklin, Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone, Onni Gust, Fiona Ng, Elizabeth Evans, Emily Knox and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors.

Ashleigh CharlesSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2222-4358
Laurie Hare-DukeSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Hannah NuddsSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1012-5125
Donna FranklinNarrative Experience Online Lived Experience Advisory Panel, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Joy Llewellyn-BeardsleySchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Stefan Rennick-EgglestoneSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Onni GustDepartment of History, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Fiona NgSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth EvansSchool of Cultures, Languages, and Area Studies, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Emily KnoxSchool of Information Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1588-0824
Ellen TownsendSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Caroline YeoSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Mike SladeSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Content and trigger warnings give information about the content of material prior to receiving it. Different typologies of content warnings have emerged across multiple sectors, including health, social media, education and entertainment. Benefits arising from their use are contested, with recent empirical evidence from educational sectors suggesting they may raise anxiety and reinforce the centrality of trauma experience to identity, whilst benefits relate to increased individual agency in making informed decisions about engaging with content. Research is hampered by the absence of a shared inter-sectoral typology of warnings. The aims of this systematic review are to develop a typology of content warnings and to identify the contexts in which content warnings are used. The review was pre-registered (ID: CRD42020197687, URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020197687) and used five sources: electronic databases covering multiple sectors (n = 19); table of contents from multi-sectoral journals (n = 5), traditional and social media websites (n = 53 spanning 36 countries); forward and backward citation tracking; and expert consultation (n = 15). In total, 6,254 documents were reviewed for eligibility and 136 documents from 32 countries were included. These were synthesised to develop the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) content warning typology, which comprises 14 domains: Violence, Sex, Stigma, Disturbing content, Language, Risky behaviours, Mental health, Death, Parental guidance, Crime, Abuse, Socio-political, Flashing lights and Objects. Ten sectors were identified: Education, Audio-visual industries, Games and Apps, Media studies, Social sciences, Comic books, Social media, Music, Mental health, and Science and Technology. Presentation formats (n = 15) comprised: education materials, film, games, websites, television, books, social media, verbally, print media, apps, radio, music, research, DVD/video and policy document. The NEON content warning typology provides a framework for consistent warning use and specification of key contextual information (sector, presentation format, target audience) in future content warning research, allowing personalisation of content warnings and investigation of global sociopolitical trends over time.

Indexed as

Social MediaAnxietyHumansNeonNeon

Identifiers

PMID35507551
PMCPMC9067675

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.