MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404768237 · doi:10.2196/60862

Privacy Concerns Versus Personalized Health Content—Pregnant Individuals’ Willingness to Share Personal Health Information on Social Media: Survey Study

2024· article· en· W4404768237 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haijing Hao, Yang W. Lee, Marianne Sharko, Qilu Li, Yiye Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintSocial mediaInternet privacyPersonally identifiable informationHealth informationPsychologyEnvironmental healthHealth careMedicineWorld Wide WebComputer scienceComputer securityPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Often lacking immediate access to care providers, pregnant individuals frequently turn to web-based sources for information to address their evolving physical and mental health needs. Social media has gained increasing prominence as a source of news and information despite privacy concerns and unique risks posed to the pregnant population. objectives: This study investigated the extent to which patients may be willing to disclose personal health information to social media companies in exchange for more personalized health content. Methods: We designed and deployed an electronic survey to pregnant individuals worldwide electronically in 2023. We used the classical Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC) model to examine how privacy concerns modulate pregnant individuals' behaviors and beliefs regarding risk and trust when using social media for health purposes. Results were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Results: Among 317 respondents who initiated the survey, 84% (265/317) of the respondents remained in the study, providing complete responses. Among them, 54.7% (145/265) indicated willingness to provide their personalized health information for receiving personalized health content via social media, while 26% (69/265) were uncertain and 19.3% (51/265) were opposed. Our estimated IUIPC model results are statistically significant and qualitatively align with the classic IUIPC model for the general population, which was previously found in an e-commerce context. The structural model revealed that privacy concerns (IUIPC) negatively affected trusting beliefs (β=-0.408; P<.001) and positively influenced risk beliefs (β=0.442; P<.001). Trusting beliefs negatively impacted risk beliefs (β=-o.362; P<.001) and positively affected the intention to disclose personal health information (β=o.266; P<.001). Risk beliefs negatively influenced the intention to disclose (β=-0.281; P<.001). The model explained 41.5% of the variance in the intention to disclose personal health information (R²=0.415). In parallel with pregnant individuals' willingness to share, we find that they have heightened privacy concerns and their use of social media for information seeking is largely impacted by their trust in the platforms. This heightened concern significantly affects both their trusting beliefs, making them less inclined to trust social media companies, and their risk beliefs, leading them to perceive greater risks in sharing personal health information. However, within this population, an increase in trust toward social media companies leads to a more substantial decrease in perceived risks than what has been previously observed in the general population. Conclusions: We find that more than half of the pregnant individuals are open to sharing their personal health information to receive personalized content about health via social media, although they have more privacy concerns than the general population. This study emphasizes the need for policy regarding the protection of health data on social media for the pregnant population and beyond.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.493
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.108 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207