Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36638130›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

"Tell us what's going on": Exploring the information needs of pregnant and post-partum women in Australia during the pandemic with 'Tweets', 'Threads', and women's views.

Cassandra Caddy, Marc Cheong, Megan S C Lim, Robert Power, Joshua P Vogel, Zoe Bradfield, Benjamin Coghlan, Caroline S E Homer, Alyce N Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Social Media Misinformation about Pregnancy and COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Influences on Vaccine Decision-Making During Pregnancy.Journal of midwifery & women's health
    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

9 authors.

Cassandra CaddyBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5874-5505
Marc CheongBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Megan S C LimBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Robert PowerBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Joshua P VogelBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Zoe BradfieldBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Benjamin CoghlanBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Caroline S E HomerBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alyce N WilsonBurnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe provision of maternity services in Australia has been significantly disrupted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many changes were initiated quickly, often with rapid dissemination of information to women. The aim of this study was to better understand what information and messages were circulating regarding COVID-19 and pregnancy in Australia and potential information gaps.

methodsThis study adopted a qualitative approach using social media and interviews. A data analytics tool (TIGER-C19) was used to extract data from social media platforms Reddit and Twitter from June to July 2021 (in the middle of the third COVID-19 wave in Australia). A total of 21 individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with those who were, or had been, pregnant in Australia since March 2020. Social media data were analysis via inductive content analysis and interview data were thematically analysed.

resultsSocial media provided a critical platform for sharing and seeking information, as well as highlighting attitudes of the community towards COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy. Women interviewed described wanting further information on the risks COVID-19 posed to themselves and their babies, and greater familiarity with the health service during pregnancy, in which they would labour and give birth. Health providers were a trusted source of information. Communication strategies that allowed participants to engage in real-time interactive discussions were preferred. A real or perceived lack of information led participants to turn to informal sources, increasing the potential for exposure to misinformation.

conclusionIt is vital that health services communicate effectively with pregnant women, early and often throughout public health crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This was particularly important during periods of increased restrictions on accessing hospital services. Information and communication strategies need to be clear, consistent, timely and accessible to reduce reliance on informal and potentially inaccurate sources.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansParturitionPostpartum PeriodPregnancyPregnant PeopleQualitative ResearchCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID36638130
PMCPMC9838848

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.