Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39297672›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol review2025

Representations of 'risky' drinking during pregnancy on Mumsnet: A discourse analysis.

Lisa Schölin, Rachel Arkell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Lisa SchölinQueens Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1348-672X
Rachel ArkellCentre for Reproductive Research & Communication, British Pregnancy Advisory Service, London, UK.

Funding

The Institute of Alcohol Studies
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOnline forums provide an environment for peer discussions to anonymously share experiences about sensitive topics. In this article we explore discussions about alcohol use during pregnancy, including representations of 'appropriate' behaviour and risks, in relation to alcohol use.

methodsWe sampled Mumsnet posts from 2016 to 2021 and analysed these using a two-staged approach: describing the content of original posts and employing discourse analysis on the entire thread which focused on unpacking the significance, activity and identity within the discourse.

resultsSeventy-three threads with 1554 replies analysed. Users engaged with different sources of evidence and mentioned guidelines and scientific sources, though most commonly provided, requested and appreciated anecdotal information. Risk was discussed in several ways but all users engaged with 'othering' drinking they perceived as risky. Only a few prescribed risks to any and all levels of drinking. There was a lack of knowledge around drinking while trying to conceive and early pregnancy. Expectations and norms of behaviour during pregnancy engaged in a 'good motherhood' discourse. Users positioned their drinking according to perceived norms through language choices; when not pregnant (or unknowingly pregnant) being 'plastered' was justified but when pregnant drinking only 'sips' or 'tiny' quantities of alcohol was considered appropriate. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsForum users demonstrated a desire to adhere to 'responsible motherhood', which did not equate to abstinence if consumption was perceived as acceptable and justified. Future research should explore information needs and effective approaches to health communication for pregnant women or those planning pregnancy.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingRisk-TakingSocial MediaAdultFemaleHumansPregnancyalcoholconceptiondiscourse analysisonline forumpregnancy

Identifiers

PMID39297672
PMCPMC11743107

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.