Observational studyBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023
The perfect birth: a content analysis of midwives' posts about birth on Instagram.
Observational study in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Practice Guidelines on Normal Labour and Childbirth: A Systematic Review.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Pooled it
- An Evaluation of Polish Women's Knowledge of Perineal Incision: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Social media influencers in the space of pregnancy and parenting: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited research into how midwives use social media within their professional role. Small pilot studies have explored the introduction of social media into maternity practice and teaching but there is little evidence around how midwives use social media professionally. This is important as 89% of pregnant women turn to social media for advice during pregnancy, and how midwives use social media could be influencing women, their perception of birth and their decision making.
methods
aimTo analyse how popular midwives portray birth on the social media platform Instagram. This is an observational mixed methods study using content analysis. Five 'popular' midwives from each country (UK, New Zealand, USA and Australia) were identified and their posts about birth collated from a one-year period (2020-21). Images/videos were then coded. Descriptive statistics enabled comparison of the posts by country. Categorisation was used to analyse and understand the content.
resultsThe study identified 917 posts from the 20 midwives' accounts, containing 1216 images/videos, with most coming from USA (n = 466), and UK (n = 239), Australia (n = 205) and New Zealand (n = 7) respectively. Images/videos were categorised into 'Birth Positivity', 'Humour', 'Education', 'Birth Story' and 'Advertisement'. Midwives' portrayals of birth represented a greater proportion of vaginal births, waterbirths and homebirths than known national birth statistics. The most popular midwives identified mainly had private businesses (n = 17). Both the midwives and women portrayed in images were primarily white, demonstrating a disproportionate representation.
conclusionThere is a small midwifery presence on Instagram that is not representative of the broader profession, or the current picture of midwifery care. This paper is the first study to explore how midwives are using the popular social media platform Instagram to portray birth. It provides insight into how midwives post an un-medicalised, low risk representation of birth. Further research is recommended to explore midwives' motivation behind their posts, and how pregnant and postnatal women engage with social media.
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.