ArticleJournal of midwifery & women's health
The Patient, the Provider, and the TikTok Creator: Qualitative Analysis of the Content and Quality of Videos on Prenatal Genetic Screening.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough providers may view the use of the noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) screen as an opportunity for patients to learn more about potential chromosomal variants of a fetus, research suggests that patients may view the genetic screening test primarily as an opportunity to learn about their fetus's sex chromosomes and may not understand the implications of a screening test, as compared with a diagnostic test. This study critically evaluates the informational quality of TikTok content related to NIPT, with a specific focus on the use and conflation of sex and gender terminology.
methodsA total of 83 TikTok videos met our inclusion criteria. Two team members systematically coded the videos using a modified DISCERN instrument and content-specific codes to assess reliability and informational quality across 3 content creator categories: patients/nonexperts, health care professionals, and organizations. Many codes focused specifically on the use of gendered language in the videos.
resultsPatient-generated content exhibited the highest engagement metrics but frequently misrepresented NIPT as a confirmatory test and conflated sex with gender. Health care provider and organizational videos demonstrated higher informational reliability but were not immune to deterministic language around sex and gender and promotional framing. DISCUSSION: The findings underscore the influence of social media as a health information source and reveal significant gaps in public understanding of NIPT, particularly regarding its screening nature and limitations. Additionally, these results highlight the need for clinical protocols that address patient misconceptions and suggest that health care professionals should actively engage with digital platforms to familiarize themselves with what patients are seeing and hearing online. Recommendations include avoiding gendered mirroring, asking questions about patient knowledge, and leveraging social media for public health 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.