ArticleReproductive health2025
Multiplatform characterization of online permanent female contraception discussion among social media users: analysis of Twitter and Reddit.
Article in Reproductive health, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIndividuals choosing permanent female contraception (PFC) face barriers including age and parity. Prior literature has focused on regret, but rarely on understanding patient perspectives. Social media is increasingly used to obtain medical information; hence this study seeks to use popular platforms to evaluate motivations, barriers, and facilitators to obtaining PFC.
methodsThis study collected Twitter and Reddit posts from October 2020 to April 2023 and July 2017 to April 2023, respectively. Data was analyzed using Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT), followed by manual deductive coding of relevant topic clusters to characterize user-generated PFC discussions. We collected 409,641 posts including 321,267 tweets and 88,374 Reddit posts and performed content analysis using a deductive coding schema using the socio-ecological model approach to determine which posts to include in the final analysis. Sentiment analysis was conducted to detect emotions and themes most correlated with post engagement.
resultsWe identified 2,356 posts, including 2,076 tweets (88.12%) and 280 subreddit posts (11.88%) from Reddit relevant to PFC discourse. Major themes included clinician (n = 246; 10.44%), patient (n = 1,388; 58.91%), interpersonal (n = 254; 10.78%), institutional (n = 311; 13.20%), and policy-level perspectives (n = 157; 6.66%) and derived 22 subthemes. The top subthemes included patients' seeking/sharing PFC advice (20.80%), discussion of successful completion or commitment/intent to undergo PFC (27.04%), interactions with healthcare providers and beliefs surrounding PFC regret (10.77%), the cost associated with PFC (7.05%), and the Dobbs V. Jackson ruling (6.66%). Additionally, there was a significant increase in posts on PFC following the Dobbs decision. Sentiment analysis shows that posts containing emotional words (both positive and negative) and words related to themes such as home, friends, and family were more likely to receive engagement on Reddit while sentiments related to health, optimism, and communication were correlated with tweet engagement.
conclusionAs reproductive healthcare continues to face restrictions, online communities provide insight into the motivations and decision-making behaviors of people seeking PFC. Findings can help clinicians better understand patient perspectives, and improve our ability to provide person-centered contraception care for patients desiring PFC.
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.