ArticleJMIR infodemiology2024
Experiences of Women With Medical Abortion Care Reflected in Social Media (VEILLE Study): Noninterventional Retrospective Exploratory Infodemiology Study.
Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2024. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbortion (also known as termination of pregnancy) is an essential element of women's reproductive health care. Feedback from women who underwent medical termination of pregnancy about their experience is crucial to help practitioners identify women's needs and develop necessary tools to improve the abortion care process. However, the collection of this feedback is quite challenging. Social media offer anonymity for women who share their abortion experience.
objectiveThis exploratory infodemiology study aimed to analyze, through French social media posts, personal medical symptoms and the different experiences and information dynamics associated with the medical abortion process.
methodsA retrospective study was performed by analyzing posts geolocated in France and published from January 1, 2017, to November 30, 2021. Posts were extracted from all French-language general and specialized publicly available web forums using specific keywords. Extracted messages were cleaned and pseudonymized. Automatic natural language processing methods were used to identify posts from women having experienced medical abortion. Biterm topic modeling was used to identify the main discussion themes and the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities was used to identify medical terms. Encountered difficulties were explored using qualitative research methods until the saturation of concepts was reached.
resultsAnalysis of 5398 identified posts (3409 users) led to the identification of 9 major topics: personal experience (n=2413 posts, 44.7%), community support (n=1058, 19.6%), pain and bleeding (n=797, 14.8%), psychological experience (n=760, 14.1%), questioned efficacy (n=410, 7.6%), social pressure (n=373, 6.9%), positive experiences (n=257, 4.8%), menstrual cycle disorders (n=107, 2%), and reported inefficacy (n=104, 1.9%). Pain, which was mentioned in 1627 (30.1%) of the 5398 posts by 1024 (30.0%) of the 3409 users, was the most frequently reported medical term. Pain was considered severe to unbearable in 24.5% of the cases (399 of the 1627 posts). Lack of information was the most frequently reported difficulty during and after the process.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that French women used social media to share their experiences, offer and find support, and provide and receive information regarding medical abortion. Infodemiology appears to be a useful tool to obtain women's feedback, therefore offering the opportunity to enhance care in women undergoing medical abortion.
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.