About: Infertility influencers: an analysis of information and influence in the fertility webspace

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Infertility influencers: an analysis of information and influence in the fertility webspace Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
has title	Infertility influencers: an analysis of information and influence in the fertility webspace
Creator	Bayer, Arielle Blakemore, Jennifer Grifo, James Smith, Meghan
Source	Medline; PMC
abstract	PURPOSE: To examine fertility-related social media accounts and influencers on two social media platforms. METHODS: The search function of Twitter (TW) and Instagram (IG) was used to generate a list of accounts with the terms: fertility, infertility, ttc, egg freezing, ivf, endometriosis, and reproductive. Accounts not in English, in private, with no posts in > 1 year, or with content unrelated to search terms were excluded. Accounts were assessed for author type; REI board certification (REI-BC); influencer (INF) status (> 10 K followers on IG; verified check mark on TW); account demographics; and content in last 5 posts. Statistical analysis included unpaired t tests, a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis, and stepwise multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Seven hundred ten accounts were identified and 537 (278 TW, 259 IG) were included. Account types included societies, clinics, physicians, patients, groups, and “other.” Instagram content (1290 posts reviewed) was primarily personal stories (31.7%) or inspiration/support (23.7%). Twitter content (1390 posts reviewed) was mostly promotion (28.2%) and research/education (20.2%). Thirty-nine accounts (12.5%) were influencers. Fertility influencers were most often awareness/support accounts (59.8% TW, 25.0% IG), patients (12.8% TW, 25% IG), or other (17.9% TW, 21.0% IG). Only 7.7% TW and 7.1% IG INFs were board-certified REI physicians. The best predictor for classification as an influencer was high activity (> 50 posts/month TW, > 10 posts/month IG). CONCLUSION: As patients increasingly utilize social media to obtain and engage with health information, it is critical to understand the fertility-related SM landscape. This understanding may help to successfully enhance relationships with patients and ensure dissemination of accurate information.
has issue date	2020-05-07(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1007/s10815-020-01799-2
bibo:pmid	32382959
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	c2e8cfe514d3f701681014db69d41c233038001c
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01799-2
resource representing a document's title	Infertility influencers: an analysis of information and influence in the fertility webspace
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7205373
has PubMed identifier	32382959
schema:publication	J Assist Reprod Genet
resource representing a document's body	covid:c2e8cfe514d3f701681014db69d41c233038001c#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'UNPAIRED' named entity 'PURPOSE' named entity 'FREEZING' named entity 'POSTS' covid:arg/c2e8cfe514d3f701681014db69d41c233038001c named entity 'infertility' named entity 'fertility' named entity 'Infertility' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Twitter' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'Logistic regression' named entity 'LinkedIn' named entity 'social media' named entity 'privacy issues' named entity 'Doximity' named entity 'social media platform' named entity 'Twitter' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Twitter' named entity 'digital connectivity' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'informed consent' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'CART' named entity 'infertility' named entity 'social media influencer' named entity 'social media platform' named entity 'ivf' named entity 'social media' named entity 'social media platform' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'logistic regression' named entity 'professional society' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Twitter' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Twitter' named entity 'CART' named entity 'Twitter' named entity 'infertility' named entity 'electronic communication' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Twitter' named entity 'menstrual cycle' named entity 'infertility' named entity 'informed decisions' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'social media' named entity 'classification and regression tree' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'social media' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Reproductive Endocrinologist' named entity 'COVID-19 pandemic' named entity 'infertility' named entity 'public service announcements' named entity 'social media' named entity 'classification tree' named entity 'social media' named entity 'social media influencer' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'check mark' named entity 'Infertility' named entity 'social media' named entity 'public health' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'epilepsy' named entity 'PCOS' named entity 'Instagram' named entity 'digital footprint' named entity 'social media' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Twitter' named entity 'social media' named entity 'Twitter'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software