Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40633918›Full record

ArticleJMIR infodemiology2025

Using Natural Language Processing to Describe the Use of an Online Community for Abortion During 2022: Dynamic Topic Modeling Analysis of Reddit Posts.

Elizabeth Pleasants, Ndola Prata, Ushma D Upadhyay, Cassondra Marshall, Coye Cheshire

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Elizabeth PleasantsSchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8435-5682
Ndola PrataBixby Center for Population, Health, and Sustainability, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5913-0737
Ushma D UpadhyayDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2731-2157
Cassondra MarshallSchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5299-9176
Coye CheshireSchool of Information, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7191-0026

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAbortion access in the United States has been in a state of rapid change and increasing restriction since the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision from the US Supreme Court in June 2022. With further constraints on access to abortion since Dobbs, the internet and online communities are playing an increasingly important role in people's abortion trajectories. There is a need for a broader understanding of how online resources are used for abortion and how they may reflect changes in the sociopolitical and legal context of abortion access. Research using online information and leveraging methods to work efficiently with large textual datasets has the potential to accelerate knowledge generation and provide novel insights into changing abortion-related experiences following Dobbs, helping address these knowledge gaps.

objectiveThis project sought to use natural language processing techniques, specifically topic modeling, to explore the content of posts to 1 online community for abortion (r/abortion) in 2022 and assess how community use changed during that time.

methodsThis analysis described and explored posts shared throughout 2022 and for 3 subperiods of interest: before the Dobbs leak (December 24, 2021-May 1, 2022), Dobbs leak to decision (May 2, 2022-June 23, 2022), and after the Dobbs decision (June 24, 2022-December 23, 2022). We used topic modeling to obtain descriptive topics for the year and each subperiod and then classified posts. Topics were then aggregated into conceptual groups based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessments. The proportion of posts classified in each conceptual group was used to assess change in community interests across the 3 study subperiods.

resultsThe 7273 posts shared in r/abortion in 2022 included in our analyses were categorized into 8 conceptual groups: abortion decision-making, navigating abortion access barriers, clinical abortion care, medication abortion processes, postabortion physical experiences, potential pregnancy, and self-managed abortion processes. Posts related to navigating access barriers were most common. The proportion of posts about abortion decision-making and self-management changed significantly across study periods (P=.006 and P<.001, respectively); abortion decision-making posts were more common before the Dobbs leak, whereas those related to self-management increased following the leak and decision.

conclusionsThis analysis provides a holistic view of r/abortion posts in 2022, highlighting the important role of online communities as abortion-supportive online resources and changing interests among posters with abortion policy changes. As policies and pathways to abortion access continue to change across the United States, approaches leveraging natural language processing with sufficiently large samples of textual data present opportunities for timely monitoring, with the potential to reflect a broad range of abortion experiences, including those of people who have limited or no interaction with clinical abortion care.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, LegalHealth Services AccessibilityInternetNatural Language ProcessingSocial MediaFemaleHumansPregnancyUnited StatesabortionBERTopicDobbs decisionnatural language processingonline communityReddittopic modeling

Identifiers

PMID40633918
PMCPMC12287674

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.