ArticleHealth promotion international2026
Beyond the hashtag: a content analysis of #womenshealth posts on Instagram.
Article in Health promotion international, 2026. 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
Abstract
Women increasingly rely on social media for health information, yet concerns persist about the accuracy, transparency, and commercial influence shaping this content. This content analysis of the Instagram posts using #womenshealth aimed to map women's health topics and interventions discussed and assess the presence of health claims, financial conflicts of interest, and reference to scientific evidence. Of 472 included posts, 297 (63%) were created by individual influencers including 162 from other or alternative health professionals and 105 from medical doctors. 264 (56%) posts focused on general health information related to a disease, condition, issue or symptom, followed by 75 (16%) posts which promoted drugs, supplements, or devices. Hormonal and reproductive health-related posts were the most common topic with 226 (48%) posts, including 58 posts specifically about menopause and/or perimenopause. 324 (69%) posts had explicit health claims, with only 34 (7%) posts referring to scientific evidence. Financial interests were common; 241 (51%) of account holders had a clear financial interest and 186 (39%) posts directly sold an intervention. Women's health-related Instagram content reveals an environment dominated by non-expert voices and commercially oriented messaging, blurring the line between women's health education and advertising. These findings highlight the risk of misleading and commercialized women's health information and underscore the need for stronger regulatory oversight and greater engagement from qualified health professionals in online spaces. More broadly, improving the quality of women's health discourse requires addressing the structural drivers of online health narratives and strengthening trust across women's information environments.
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.