A global social media analysis of the accuracy and specific characteristics of information shared about family planning and contraception

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms have become important sources of health information. An assessment of the use-generated contents to reduce misinformation has becoming an imperative responsibility of health professionals. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the shared information related to family planning, and contraception, and other characteristics on four major social media sites based on WHO guidelines. STUDY DESIGN: A web-based content analysis using a cross-sectional study design METHODS: We have evaluated the information on four popular social media, including Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram. Information was evaluated as "accurate" if it was consistent with the standard guidelines. RESULTS: Out of 486 posts, 77.4% were evaluated as "accurate". Information characteristics, including being shared on Facebook (OR = 27.7, 95% CI: 7.41-104.14) and YouTube (OR = 15.9, 95% CI: 2.7-93.2), being shared by public accounts (OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.7), and for educational purposes (OR = 4.2, 95% CI: 2.6-6.5), were significantly associated with the content's accuracy. A significant proportion of inaccurate information was shared by health professionals. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There are notable proportions of misinformation, and some were shared by healthcare providers. The findings highlighted the importance of consistent evaluation and monitoring of the information shared on social media based on the latest evidence. Healthcare providers should leverage the advantages of social media to disseminate up-to-date, evidence-based contraceptive information to their patients, meanwhile helping them to correct myths and misinformation on family planning.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-29T02:00:03.542394+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0