Parents’ Use of Social Media for Health Information Before and After a Consultation With Health Care Professionals: Australian Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".