Plasenta Previa ile İlgili Instagram Paylaşımlarının Bilgi Kalitesinin Analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırma, plasenta previa ile ilgili Instagram paylaşımlarında sunulan bilgilerin doğruluk ve güvenilirliğini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yöntem: Plasenta previa ile ilgili en sık kullanılan iki hashtag belirlenmiş ve detaylı analiz için seçilmiştir: #placenta ve #placentaprevia. Instagram arama algoritması, #placenta hashtag’i için 595.000, #placentaprevia hashtag’i için ise 31.000 paylaşım döndürmüştür. Her hashtag için “En Popüler 100 Paylaşım” kaydedilmiş ve toplam 200 paylaşımın 139’u araştırma kriterlerini karşılamıştır. İki bağımsız tıp uzmanı, bilgilerin güvenilirliğini değerlendirmek için beş sorudan oluşan modifiye DISCERN analizini kullanmıştır. Betimleyici istatistikler hesaplanmış ve değişkenler arasındaki etkileşimleri ve gruplar arası istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farkları belirlemek için Kruskal-Wallis testi ve Mann-Whitney U testi uygulanmıştır (p < 0.05; istatistiksel anlamlılık α = 0.05 olarak belirlenmiştir). Bulgular: Paylaşımların %20,1’i (n = 28) hekimler, %11,5’i (n = 16) hastalar ve %68,3’ü (n = 95) diğer sağlık profesyonelleri tarafından yapılmıştır. Paylaşımlarda sunulan bilgilerin güvenilirliği açısından yapılan karşılaştırmalar, hekimler tarafından yapılan paylaşımlarla diğer gruplar arasında belirgin bir fark olduğunu göstermiştir (p < 0,001). Sonuç: Hekimler tarafından yapılan paylaşımlar genellikle platformdaki diğer içeriklere göre daha güvenilir ve faydalı olsa da Instagram paylaşımlarında hastalar için sunulan bilgilerin doğruluk ve güvenilirlik açısından sınırlı olabileceği göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

Keywords

• Yüksek riskli gebelik
• Bilgi kalitesi
• Instagram
• Plasenta previa
• Plasenta anomalileri
• Sosyal medya

Analysis of the Informational Quality of Instagram Posts Regarding Placenta Previa

Abstract

Aim: This research evaluates the accuracy of information provided in Instagram posts about placenta previa. Method: The two most frequently utilized hashtags about placenta previa have been identified and selected for further analysis. The selected hashtags are #placenta and #placentaprevia. The Instagram search algorithm returned 595,000 posts for the hashtag #placenta and 31,000 posts for the hashtag #placentaprevia. For each hashtag, the 'Top 100 Posts' were recorded (n = 100), and 139 out of 200 posts were found to meet the research criteria. Two independent medical professionals assessed the information's reliability through a modified DISCERN analysis that included five questions. Descriptive statistics were computed, and assessments were conducted utilizing the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test to assess the interactions of variables and identify statistically significant differences among groups (p < 0.05; statistical significance set at α = 0.05). Results: Of the posts, 20.1% (n = 28) were authored by physicians, 11.5% (n = 16) by patients, and 68.3% (n = 95) by other healthcare professionals. A comparison of the credibility of the information presented in the posts revealed a notable discrepancy between those shared by medical professionals and those from other groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: While the posts of medical professionals are typically more reliable and useful than other content on the platform, it is important to note that Instagram posts often lack accuracy and reliability in the information provided for patients.

Keywords

• High-risk pregnancy
• Information quality
• Instagram
• Placenta previa
• Placental abnormalities
• Social media

Supporting Institution

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Ethical Statement

This study did not require ethical approval as it involved the analysis of publicly available social media content without human subjects or identifiable private information.

Thanks

The authors would like to thank no one in particular.

References

1. Adler H, Lewis M, Ng CHM, Brooks C, Leonardi M, Mikocka-Walus A, et al. Social Media, Endometriosis, and Evidence-Based Information: An Analysis of Instagram Content. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(1):121.
2. Afful-Dadzie E, Afful-Dadzie A, Egala SB. Social media in health communication: A literature review of information quality. Health Information Management. 2023;52(1):3-17.
3. Ayranci F, Buyuk SK, Kahveci K, Sunar C. An analysis of Instagram posts about genioplasty. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet. 2021;25(3):275-282.
4. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C. A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2013;15(4):e85.
5. Ellakany P, Aly NM, Hassan MG. #implantology: A content analysis of the implant-related hashtags on Instagram. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Epub ahead of print 2023 Nov 10.
6. Goobie GC, Guler SA, Johannson KA, Fisher JH, Ryerson CJ. YouTube videos as a source of misinformation on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Annals of the American Thoracic Society. 2019;16(5):572-579.
7. Jung MJ, Seo MS. Assessment of reliability and information quality of YouTube videos about root canal treatment after 2016. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1):494.
8. Sudarsan A, Mahashabde R, Singh P, Philip JN, Nerella R, Aranguri AAH. A cross-sectional Instagram survey to evaluate quality and reliability of information about cholecystitis and cholecystectomy. Journal of Primary Care Specialties. 2024;5(1):36-40.

9. Ölçer Us Y, Us M. Evaluation of reliability, quality, accuracy, and content of YouTube videos on bruxism in children – a descriptive study. Çocuk Dergisi / Journal of Child. 2023;23(1):69-79.
10. Gudapati JD, Franco AJ, Tamang S, Mikhael A, Hadi MA, Roy V, et al. A study of global quality scale and reliability scores for chest pain: an Instagram-post analysis. Cureus. 2023;15(9):e45629.
11. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 1999 Feb;53(2):105-11.
12. Guler AY. The effect of Instagram posts related to #Wisdomteeth on patients. Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2022;123(2):155-157.
13. Öz E. A content analysis of Instagram® posts about pediatric zirconia crowns: a cross-sectional study. Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Dental Sciences. 2024;30(1):58-66.
14. Ayranci F, Buyuk SK, Kahveci K. Are YouTube™ videos a reliable source of information about genioplasty? Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2021;122(1):39-42.
15. Sinha R, Shibata R, Patel A, Sternchos JA. Social media in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery: what is #trending on Instagram? Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology. 2021;28(10):1730-1734.
16. Holtzman S, Carr C, Zeligs K, Blank SV. The use of Instagram by gynecologic oncology providers as a patient education tool for patients at high risk of gynecologic cancer. Gynecologic Oncology Reports. 2023;46:101143.
17. Hüsch T, Ober S, Haferkamp A, Naumann G, Tunn R, Saar M, et al. Comparison of online health information between different digital platforms for pelvic organ prolapse. World Journal of Urology. 2022;40(10):2529-2534.
18. Cresswell JA, Ronsmans C, Calvert C, Filippi V. Prevalence of placenta praevia by world region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tropical Medicine & International Health. 2013;18(6):712-724.
19. Karami M, Jenabi E, Fereidooni B. The association of placenta previa and assisted reproductive techniques: a meta-analysis. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2018;31(14):1940-1947. Erratum in: Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2019;32(24):4191.
20. Dzienny AC, Toal CT, Fitzgerald JJ, Carter-Brooks CM. Who's posting what? A qualitative, cross-sectional study comparing Twitter and Instagram patterns between health care professionals and patients. Urogynecology. 2022;28(8):492-499.
21. Gnade CM, Avery CC, Yang Z, Pickett CM, Oshinowo AE. Social media trends in obstetrics and gynecology residency programs on Instagram and X (Twitter). PLoS ONE. 2024;19(5):e0296930.
22. Collà Ruvolo C, Califano G, Tuccillo A, Tolentino S, Cancelliere E, Di Bello F, et al. YouTube™ as a source of information on placenta accreta: a quality analysis. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2022;272:82-87.
23. Vitale SG, Angioni S, Saponara S, Sicilia G, Etrusco A, D'Alterio MN, et al. TikTok as a platform for hysteroscopy information: An analytical video-based cross-sectional study to assess quality, reliability, and accuracy. International Journal of Gynaecology & Obstetrics. 2025;168(1):353-361.
24. Peyser A, Goldstein L, Mullin C, Goldman RH. Fertility education: what's trending on Instagram. Fertility Research and Practice. 2021;7(1):3.
25. Huang AS, Abdullah AAN, Chen K, Zhu D. Ophthalmology and social media: an in-depth investigation of ophthalmologic content on Instagram. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2022;16:685-694.
26. Kolade O, Martinez R, Awe A, Dubin JM, Mehran N, Mulcahey MK, et al. Misinformation about orthopaedic conditions on social media: analysis of TikTok and Instagram. Cureus. 2023;15(12):e49946.
27. Amon KL, Brunner M, Campbell AJ. The reel health care professionals of Instagram: a systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2024;27(3):172-186.
28. Sütcüoğlu BM, Güler M. Social media videos on contraceptive implants: an assessment of video quality and reliability. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. 2024;37(1):39-44.