Changes in Reproductive Health Information-Seeking Behaviors After the Dobbs Decision: Systematic Search of the Wikimedia Database
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, confusion followed regarding the legality of abortion in different states across the country. Recent studies found increased Google searches for abortion-related terms in restricted states after the Dobbsv. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision was leaked. As patients and providers use Wikipedia (Wikimedia Foundation) as a predominant medical information source, we hypothesized that changes in reproductive health information-seeking behavior could be better understood by examining Wikipedia article traffic. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine trends in Wikipedia usage for abortion and contraception information before and after the Dobbs decision. METHODS: Page views of abortion- and contraception-related Wikipedia pages were scraped. Temporal changes in page views before and after the Dobbs decision were then analyzed to explore changes in baseline views, differences in views for abortion-related information in states with restrictive abortion laws versus nonrestrictive states, and viewer trends on contraception-related pages. RESULTS: Wikipedia articles related to abortion topics had significantly increased page views following the leaked and final Dobbs decision. There was a 103-fold increase in the page views for the Wikipedia article Roe v. Wade following the Dobbs decision leak (mean 372,654, SD 135,478 vs mean 3614, SD 248; P<.001) and a 67-fold increase in page views following the release of the final Dobbs decision (mean 8942, SD 402 vs mean 595,871, SD 178,649; P<.001). Articles about abortion in the most restrictive states had a greater increase in page views (mean 40.6, SD 12.7; 18/51, 35% states) than articles about abortion in states with some restrictions or protections (mean 26.8, SD 7.3; 24/51, 47% states; P<.001) and in the most protective states (mean 20.6, SD 5.7; 8/51, 16% states; P<.001). Finally, views to pages about common contraceptive methods significantly increased after the Dobbs decision. "Vasectomy" page views increased by 183% (P<.001), "IUD" (intrauterine device) page views increased by 80% (P<.001), "Combined oral contraceptive pill" page views increased by 24% (P<.001), "Emergency Contraception" page views increased by 224% (P<.001), and "Tubal ligation" page views increased by 92% (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: People sought information on Wikipedia about abortion and contraception at increased rates after the Dobbs decision. Increased traffic to abortion-related Wikipedia articles correlated to the restrictiveness of state abortion policies. Increased interest in contraception-related pages reflects the increased demand for contraceptives observed after the Dobbs decision. Our work positions Wikipedia as an important source of reproductive health information and demands increased attention to maintain and improve Wikipedia as a reliable source of health information after the Dobbs decision.
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 | 0,004 | 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».