It takes a community to conceive: an analysis of the scope, nature and accuracy of online sources of health information for couples trying to conceive

Sophie G E Kedzior; Tina Bianco-Miotto; James Breen; Kerrilyn R Diener; Martin Donnelley; Kylie R Dunning; Megan A S Penno; John E Schjenken; David J Sharkey; Nicolette A Hodyl; Tod Fullston; Maria Gardiner; Hannah M Brown; Alice R Rumbold

doi:10.1016/j.rbms.2019.08.004

It takes a community to conceive: an analysis of the scope, nature and accuracy of online sources of health information for couples trying to conceive

Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2019 Oct 5:9:48-63. doi: 10.1016/j.rbms.2019.08.004. eCollection 2019 Dec.

Authors

Sophie G E Kedzior¹, Tina Bianco-Miotto^{1

2}, James Breen^{1

3

4}, Kerrilyn R Diener^{1

5}, Martin Donnelley^{1

6}, Kylie R Dunning^{1

7}, Megan A S Penno¹, John E Schjenken^{1

8}, David J Sharkey¹, Nicolette A Hodyl¹, Tod Fullston¹, Maria Gardiner⁹, Hannah M Brown^{7

4}, Alice R Rumbold^{1

4}

Affiliations

¹ Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Australia.
² School of Agriculture, Food and Wine & Waite Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Australia.
³ University of Adelaide, Bioinformatics Hub, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
⁴ South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
⁵ School of Pharmacy and Medical Science and UniSA Cancer Research Institute, University of South Australia, Australia.
⁶ Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
⁷ ARC Centre for Nanoscale Biophotonics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
⁸ Priority Research Centre for Reproductive Science, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
⁹ School of Psychology, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.

Abstract

This study examined the nature and accuracy of information available across online platforms for couples trying to conceive. A consumer simulation-based investigation of English websites and social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) was undertaken using common search terms identified in a pilot study. Claims about fertility and pregnancy health were then extracted from the results and analysed thematically. The accuracy of each claim was assessed independently by six fertility and conception experts, rated on a scale of 1 (not factual) to 4 (highly factual), with scores collated to produce a median rating. Claims with a median score < 3 were classified as inaccurate. The use of the terms 'trying to conceive' and '#TTC' were common identifiers on online platforms. Claims were extracted predominantly from websites (n = 89) rather than social media, with Twitter and Instagram comprising commercial elements and Facebook focused on community-based support. Thematic analysis revealed three major themes among the claims across all platforms: conception behaviour and monitoring, lifestyle and exposures, and medical. Fact-checking by the experts revealed that 40% of the information assessed was inaccurate, and that inaccuracies were more likely to be present in the conception behaviour and monitoring advice, the topics most amenable to modification. Since online information is a readily accessible and commonly utilized resource, there is opportunity for improved dissemination of evidence-based material to reach interested couples. Further cross-disciplinary and consumer-based research, such as a user survey, is required to understand how best to provide the 'trying to conceive' community with accurate information.

Keywords: accuracy; conception; fertility; internet; social media.