Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Does informal online media provide supportive or unreliable information about pregnancy and birth during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Alexandra Cardoso Pinto, Emily Southall, Justyna Gromala and Vivian Graf
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.21-2-s32
Clin Med March 2021
Alexandra Cardoso Pinto
AImperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily Southall
AImperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justyna Gromala
AImperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vivian Graf
AImperial College London, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Introduction

89% of mothers use social media for pregnancy and parenthood advice.1 It is essential that clinicians understand the information that patients read, in order to comprehend patients' views and concerns, and advise on which sources may be supportive, and which are unreliable.

Previous studies have also highlighted an ongoing infodemic, which may intensify fear and increase risk of deteriorating mental health.2

Materials and methods

This study assessed and compared content on online media platforms for sentiment analysis and factual accuracy of pregnancy/birth-related content during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Twitter, Facebook, Mumsnet and news outlets (BBC, Daily Mail, Guardian, Independent, The Sun and The Times) were chosen for analysis based on their popularity. Two categories of search terms were generated, one COVID-19 and one pregnancy-related. Inclusion criteria stipulated that posts were written in English, in the public domain, published between 23 March and 30 April 2020, and contained at least one term from each search category. Relevant search results were limited to a maximum of 10 per combination of terms. Results were defined by category, source, sentiment and accuracy. Sentiment was determined as ‘positive’, ‘negative’, ‘neutral’ or ‘both’ by overarching emotion expressed, assessed independently by the authors, and an average was taken. Negative included fear, anger and disappointment, whereas positive included happiness, relief and gratitude. Accuracy was determined using the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' guidance issued in May, and was only measured for posts containing relevant information, which were a minority.

Significance of accuracy and sentiment comparisons were assessed using a Pearson's chi-squared test with Yates' continuity correction.

Results and discussion

Every platform had more negative than positive content. Mumsnet had a significantly higher percentage of negative posts than any other platform (p<2.20E–16); a majority of posts shared concerns and frustrations about experiences during COVID-19. There were fewer negative comments on Mumsnet than posts (p=2.20E–16); many provide neutral advice or positive support. In the news outlets, there were more negative titles than articles (p=0.10); the lack of significance indicates the consistency in sentiment. The proportion of neutral/both news articles was similar to that of posts on Twitter and Facebook (p=0.10), perhaps because a large proportion of Twitter and Facebook posts were about, or included, news articles.

Percentage of overall inaccuracy was low. It was highest in news (p=1.36E–6), but all of these were outdated articles, accurate at the time of publication (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Accuracy and sentiment analyses as percentage of total within platform

Conclusion

A high proportion of content analysed expressed negative sentiments, exposure to which may increase risk of depression and anxiety.2 Future studies should investigate how this can affect mothers' wellbeing and mental health.

This study found low levels of inaccuracy; while this may suggest these online media platforms are not unreliable sources of information about pregnancy/birth during COVID-19, this cannot be confirmed. Only a minority of posts contained guidance or information, suggesting online platforms are used more for sharing opinions or stories, of which accuracy was not determined. Therefore, increasing the presence of NHS-sourced information on online media could be beneficial, increasing access to reliable guidance.

Conflicts of interest

None declared.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Baker B
    , Yang I. Social media as social support in pregnancy and the postpartum. BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2018;17:31–4.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Chao M
    , Xue D, Liu T, et al. Media use and acute psychological outcomes during COVID-19 outbreak in China. J Anxiety Disord 2020;74:102248.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Does informal online media provide supportive or unreliable information about pregnancy and birth during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Alexandra Cardoso Pinto, Emily Southall, Justyna Gromala, Vivian Graf
Clinical Medicine Mar 2021, 21 (Suppl 2) 32-33; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.21-2-s32

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Does informal online media provide supportive or unreliable information about pregnancy and birth during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Alexandra Cardoso Pinto, Emily Southall, Justyna Gromala, Vivian Graf
Clinical Medicine Mar 2021, 21 (Suppl 2) 32-33; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.21-2-s32
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Materials and methods
    • Results and discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Conflicts of interest
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • UK trainee perspectives on leadership in the COVID-19 pandemic
  • East Kent IT collaborative for healthcare (E-KITCH) – responding to the pandemic through optimising use of information technology
  • The role of RCP chief registrars in the COVID-19 pandemic response
Show more COVID-19

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians