ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health
#GroupBStrepTest on TikTok: What Social Media Reveals About Patient Experiences and Expectations.
Article in Journal of midwifery & women's health. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNearly half of the US population uses TikTok, influencing patient perceptions of public health measures, including group B streptococcus (GBS), a known cause of neonatal sepsis and mortality. This study examines TikTok content on GBS testing/treatment.
methodsAfter institutional review board exemption, we evaluated the top 100 videos tagged with #gbs, #groupbstrep, #gbstest, and #groupbstreptest. Video information was downloaded via Apify. Two reviewers coded videos, with a third resolving discrepancies. We used the modified 5-point DISCERN scale to assess information reliability and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) for understandability and actionability.
resultsOf 773 videos, 176 unrelated to GBS or in non-English languages were excluded. The top 100 videos had 17 million views, averaging 66.4 seconds. Most content creators were female (97.0%) and based in the United States (89.0%); fewer were health care professionals (21.1%). Video types included patient experiences (41.0%), educational videos (28.0%), and humorous content (22.0%). Video tone was more often negative (40%) than positive (22%). Nearly half of patient videos (49.3%) emphasized anxiety, although only 10.3% reported test discomfort. Concerns centered on the rectal swab, with some patients being unaware of this procedure until after the test. Distrust of health care professionals was emphasized in 6.5% of videos. Five videos (360,600 views, 1273 shares) promoted alternative GBS treatments (eg, probiotics, garlic, fermented foods). Videos scored poorly on quality (DISCERN: mean, 1.8; SD, 1.1) and actionability (PEMAT: mean, 18.3%; SD, 35.6%) but had better understandability (PEMAT: mean, 75.8%; SD, 19.7%). DISCUSSION: Significant anxiety and misinformation about GBS testing/treatment exist in popular content, highlighting the importance of anticipatory counseling. Health care professionals can use these insights to guide patient education.
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.