ArticlePloS one2026
Quality and accuracy of complementary feeding information on Instagram: A cross-sectional content analysis study.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Instagram is a social media platform commonly used by parents and caregivers to source complementary feeding advice, yet the reliability of the information provided is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the quality and accuracy of complementary feeding information disseminated on Instagram, a global digital communication platform, and to assess its alignment with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. A cross-sectional content analysis study was conducted on Instagram in March 2025. 13 complementary feeding-related hashtags were used to identify relevant posts. Quality was evaluated using a modified version of the Principles for Health Information on Social Media (PRHISM) tool, which applied 11 relevant principles to evaluate the digital health content. Alignment with WHO recommendations for timing of introduction and food groups were used to assess accuracy. 650 Instagram posts were identified. Following screening, 302 posts were evaluated for quality and accuracy. Of the 103 posts that mentioned when to introduce complementary foods, 93.2% recommended introduction at 6 months, in line with WHO recommendations. Among the 268 posts addressing food types, 52.6% promoted consumption of all three WHO-recommended food groups. Overall, information quality was classified as mediocre according to the PRHISM criteria, with most posts (93.0%) scoring between 26 and 50 out of 100. The lowest scoring PRHISM domains were attribution, supplementary information, and the presentation of risks and benefits. Instagram, a widely accessed channel for health advice, provides complementary feeding information that varies in accuracy and is of mediocre quality. While accurate for the timing of complementary food introduction when compared to WHO guidelines, the accuracy of the types of foods recommended, and the quality of information provided, are more variable. These findings underscore the need for digital health policies, content regulation, and professional engagement to improve the quality and accuracy of nutrition-related information on social media and promote equitable, evidence-based caregiving practices.
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.