Social Support Among Women With Potential Essure-Related Complaints: Analysis of Facebook Group Content
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social support groups are an important resource for people to cope with problems. Previous studies have reported the different types of support in these groups, but little is known about the type of reactions that sharing of personal experiences induce among members. It is important to know how and to what extent members of support groups influence each other regarding the consumption of medical care. We researched this in a web-based Facebook group of women sterilized with Essure. Essure was a device intended for permanent contraception. From 2015 onward, women treated with Essure for tubal occlusion raised safety concerns and numerous complaints. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the use of social support in a Facebook community named "Essure problemen Nederland" (EPN; in English, "Essure problems in the Netherlands"). METHODS: All posts in the closed Facebook group EPN between March 8 and May 8, 2018, were included. In total, 3491 Facebook posts were analyzed using a modified version of the Social Support Behavior Codes framework created by Cutrona and Suhr in 1992. Posts were abstracted and aggregated into a database. Two investigators evaluated the posts, developed a modified version of the Social Support Behavior Codes framework, and applied the codes to the collected data. RESULTS: We found that 92% of messages contained a form of social support. In 68.8% of posts, social support was provided, and in 31.2% of posts, social support was received. Informational and emotional support was the most frequently used form of provided social support (40.6% and 55.5%, respectively). The same distribution was seen with received social support: informational support in 81.5% and emotional support in 17.4% of cases. Our analysis showed a strong correlation between providing or receiving social support and the main form of social support (P<.001). In a total of only 74 (2.2%) cases, women advised each other to seek medical care. CONCLUSIONS: The main purpose of women in the EPN Facebook group was to provide and receive informational or emotional support or both.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".