ArticleWomen's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
Content Analysis of Patient-Facing Information Related to Preeclampsia.
Article in Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious research has shown pregnant people are not knowledgeable about preeclampsia, a significant cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. This lack of knowledge may impact their ability to report symptoms, comply with recommendations, and receive appropriate follow-up care. Pregnant people commonly seek information from sources outside their treating clinician, including pregnancy-specific books and online sources. We examined commonly used preeclampsia information sources to evaluate whether pregnant people are receiving up-to-date, guideline-based information.
methodsWe conducted a content analysis of preeclampsia-related information in top-ranking websites and bestselling pregnancy books. We used American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists preeclampsia guidelines to construct a codebook, which we used to examine source content completeness and accuracy. For each source, we analyzed information about preeclampsia diagnosis, patient-reported symptoms, risk factors, prevention, treatment, and complications.
resultsAcross 19 included sources (13 websites and 6 books), we found substantial variation in completeness and accuracy of preeclampsia information. We found high rates of mentions for preeclampsia symptoms. Risk factors were more commonly included in online sources than book sources. Most sources mentioned treatment options, including blood pressure medication and giving birth; however, one-third of online sources positively mentioned the nonrecommended treatment of bed rest. Prevention methods, including prenatal aspirin for high-risk pregnancies, and long-term complications of preeclampsia were infrequently mentioned.
conclusionsVarying rates of accuracy in patient-facing preeclampsia information mean there is substantial room for improvement in these sources. Ensuring pregnant people receive current guideline-based information is critical for improving outcomes and implementing shared decision-making.
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.