ArticleCureus2024
Analyzing Engagement: A Study of Teething-Related Discussions and Trends on Facebook.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaregivers often use Facebook to seek advice on children's health issues, including teething. However, the lack of professional oversight on this platform can lead to the spread of misinformation, emphasizing the need for research on user engagement with teething content.
aimThis longitudinal study assesses public interaction with teething-related information on Facebook, aiming to inform children's health organizations about creating accurate social media content.
methodsA year-long analysis of English-language Facebook posts tagged "teething" was conducted, focusing on public pages and groups, while excluding unrelated or private content. Sources were categorized, and engagement was measured against page likes or group memberships. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to evaluate statistical differences in post types and engagement by source (P < 0.05).
resultsOut of 193 relevant posts, interactive content was the most common (112 posts (58%)), followed by miscellaneous (59 posts (30.6%)) and educational content (22 posts (11.4%)). Noticeable confusion among users was observed concerning teething symptoms and processes. Misinformation was prevalent, particularly regarding the use of amber necklaces, amber teething toys, topical anesthetics, and nocturnal bottle feeding for relief. The engagement rate for teething content was low at 1.09%, with significant variations in content strategies by source (P < 0.001), though engagement rates were consistent (P = 0.406).
conclusionsThe study uncovers active but misinformed discussions about teething on Facebook, marked by a lack of evidence-based advice and low engagement rates. These findings emphasize the immediate need for children's health organizations to provide scientifically accurate information to foster a better-informed online community.
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.