ArticleDigital health
Fertile ground for social support? Understanding men's use of online infertility support groups.
Article in Digital 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Men grappling with infertility often face emotional distress due to stigma and masculinity norms. Social support is vital in coping with infertility, and with the rise of digital health, much of it has shifted online. However, Dutch-speaking online infertility support groups (OISGs) remain unexplored, especially regarding male support inclusion. Existing research focuses on message content, offering limited insight into user demographics and usage patterns. Men's online support experiences are largely unexplored, and studies rarely examine online and offline networks together, despite their combined importance for support and wellbeing. This study addresses these gaps through three objectives: (1) explore the availability of Dutch- speaking OISGs and their inclusion of male-specific support; (2) map characteristics of male users and their usage of OISGs; and (3) understand how men experience online versus offline infertility support, and what factors shape their use. Methods: A multistage mixed-method design was used in Flanders and the Netherlands, comprising three sequential components: (1) an environmental scan; (2) an online survey; and (3) online semi-structured interviews. Results: Findings show that Dutch OISGs are scarce and male-specific support is not self-evident. Users are predominantly higher-SES, indicating selective access. Freya is the most used platform, with sustained but varied usage. Men's engagement is shaped by an interplay of digital and psychosocial factors, with perceived anonymity acting as a paradox. Online and offline infertility support are experienced as complementary, fulfilling different needs. The core distinction lies in the nature of relationships, peer versus intimate, rather than the medium. Support needs are dynamic across both settings. Conclusion: These insights underscore the need for more, inclusive, and tailored support strategies that address the dynamic needs of men navigating infertility in both online and offline contexts.
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.