Parents’ Use of Social Media for Health Information Before and After a Consultation With Health Care Professionals: Australian Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Social media is a crucial source of health information for many parents due to its integration into modern life, raising critical concerns for public health. Parents use various social media platforms to find health information for their children, with most information created and shared by parents with no medical or health training. The extent to which parents seek health information from social media before and after a consultation and their motivations for doing so remain underresearched. Objective: This study aimed to investigate Australian parents' use of social media for health information for their children, aged between 6 months and 5 years, before and after consulting with health care professionals. Methods: A representative cross-sectional survey of 1000 Australian parents with children aged 6 months to 5 years was conducted between November and December 2021. Data were cleaned and analyzed using IBM SPSS software. The primary outcomes were (1) parental motivation and prevalence of social media use for health information and (2) parental motivation for using social media before and after a consultation with their child's health care professional. Results: Of the 1000 parents surveyed, 82.2% (n=822) reported using social media for health information for their child. Parents were more likely to consult social media before and after a health consultation if they were aged 30-39 or ≥50 years and born in Australia. Parents with higher levels of education were less likely to consult social media. Parents were motivated to seek health information before a consultation for a variety of reasons, including exchanging opinions and experiences (639/767, 83.3%), having information that is available 24/7 (622/767, 81.1%), receiving emotional support (599/767, 78.1%), having previous positive experiences (597/767, 77.8%), and having friends and family that use social media for health information (577/767, 75.2%). Parents sought information after a consultation to connect with parents with similar experiences (546/794, 68.8%), seek a second opinion (505/794, 63.6%), fact-check information provided by their health care professional (483/794, 60.8%), and look for other treatment options (353/794, 44.5%). Conclusions: Using social media for child health information is part of the modern parenting experience. It can be challenging to discern the quality of health information on social media, leaving parents open to incorrect information and misinformation. Although access to immediate social support is a welcomed feature of social media, receiving incorrect health information can have unwanted consequences for the child, family, health provider, and wider community. The upskilling of parental health literacy to navigate the unique health literacy challenges that social media brings, alongside the creation and delivery of accessible, evidence-based information in varying formats, is urgently required. The provision of this information is the responsibility of every level of the health system, not just the treating health care professional.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».