Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41451402›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2025

Side effects and cessation of the oral contraceptive pill on TikTok: a content analysis.

Morolayo Ilori, Hannah Lee, Anisha Patel, Taylor Stanton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Morolayo Ilori *Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, United States.
Hannah Lee *Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, United States.
Anisha Patel *Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, United States.
Taylor StantonDepartment of Women's Health Services, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, MI, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the content and reliability of videos discussing the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) on TikTok, the popular social media platform amongst adults aged 18-24, to gauge the dialogue surrounding birth control on TikTok. Methods: We conducted a quantitative content analysis. The top 100 TikTok videos in English under each of the six hashtags related to OCPs were collected. Video content, engagement metrics (likes, comments, shares), and creator attributes were analyzed by two independent reviewers, with a third to arbitrate discrepancies. Results: 307 videos were included in the final data set with an average of 134,891 likes, 1,080 comments, and 7,483 shares. Healthcare providers created 27% of videos and 85.5% of these videos were educational. The majority of videos (73%) were created by non-healthcare providers and 54.4% discussed OCPs in a negative tone. Side effects were mentioned in 79% of videos, and 64% of these videos carried a negative tone regarding OCP side effects. Discontinuing OCPs was discussed in 24% of videos, and 83% of these videos carried a negative tone. Conclusions: The most frequently discussed topic was the side effects of OCPs, with the majority framed negatively. Approximately one quarter of videos addressed discontinuing OCPs, often portraying cessation as beneficial. In the post-Roe v. Wade era, understanding how OCP experiences are portrayed on TikTok highlights the importance of physician-patient collaboration to support informed contraceptive decision-making and move beyond narratives that focus primarily on negative experiences.

Indexed as

birth controlcontraceptionoral contraceptive pillreproductive healthside effectssocial mediatiktok

Identifiers

PMID41451402
PMCPMC12727916

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.