Hidden Communities of Practice in Social Media Groups: Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most US mothers initiate breastfeeding, suboptimal breastfeeding rates still exist. Although breastfeeding is a complex process, social support has been linked with increases in positive breastfeeding outcomes. Recent technological advances, including the development of social networking sites, provide mothers with convenient access to a unique array of audiences from which to seek advice about parenting, including breastfeeding. However, little is known about how the use of the sites-specifically groups centered around breastfeeding-influences breastfeeding knowledge, attitudes, or behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This mixed methods study aimed to explore utilization of an existing probreastfeeding Facebook group and how utilization influences breastfeeding-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. METHODS: Participants were recruited online through Facebook wall posts from within the existing group. Mothers aged between 18 and 50 years who were pregnant and intended to breastfeed, were currently breastfeeding, or had recently weaned their infant in the past 3 years were eligible to participate. Participants engaged in online focus group discussions (n=21) and individual interviews (n=12). Inductive content analysis of qualitative data led to the conceptualization and contextualization of a breastfeeding community of practice (COP). Using qualitative results, a quantitative survey was then developed to assess the prevalence of qualities of a COP as well as how COP usage influenced breastfeeding-related attitudes and knowledge. A total of 314 mothers completed the online survey. RESULTS: Qualitative findings showed an overall sense of community, with subthemes of group trust, interaction, and the promotion of breastfeeding. A majority (287/314, 91.5%) of mothers initiated breastfeeding, with 69.0% (216/314) of mothers reporting exclusive breastfeeding their infant at 6 months. Approximately 98.5% (309/314) of mothers reported that the Facebook group captured and stored knowledge; therefore, information could be easily accessed and applied. In addition, 96.2% (302/317) of mothers reported that the Facebook group motivated them to share breastfeeding-related knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that this existing probreastfeeding Facebook group exhibits characteristics of an online COP, which was organically formed. Utilization of the Facebook group, in the context of an online COP, could be beneficial in impacting breastfeeding-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. However, further examination and exploration of breastfeeding COPs, including using this type of model as a method of lactation support or as a telemedicine framework, is a clear need.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".