MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411985803 · doi:10.2196/65288

Understanding Intimate Health in Online Spaces Among Women in Aotearoa New Zealand: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study

2025· article· en· W4411985803 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Victoria Egli, Callie Vandewiele, Hanna Price, Caitlyn MacIntyre, Sarah Bickerton, Nina Duggan, Seline McNamee, Emmy Rākete, Alana Cavadino

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintAotearoaProtocol (science)PsychologyGerontologyMedicineGender studiesSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Social media has become an important tool facilitating communication and connection in a postpandemic landscape. This context has prompted an increase in the sharing of information and disinformation about general health. This provides an opportunity to seek information about and support for intimate (ie, sexual and reproductive) health, with the added assurance of maintaining a degree of anonymity in a socially taboo context. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to better understand how women in Aotearoa New Zealand use social media to access sexual and reproductive health information and support. Engagement with stakeholders and community groups will be undertaken throughout the study to analyze the findings and present solutions to identified issues. METHODS: This online survey is the first stage in a study which uses a mixed methods approach involving the collection of qualitative and quantitative data through an anonymous survey on the Qualtrics platform. Recruitment occurred through advertising on the University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau and University of Waikato social media accounts and physical posters in various locations nationwide. These posters prioritized recruitment of groups that are often underrepresented. This study will also present the preliminary results to stakeholders, prioritizing whakawhanaungatanga (building relationships) and manaakitanga (kindness and respect for others, emphasizing responsibility and reciprocity) in the co-designing of future research aims. Subsequent analysis of all the above data forms will be performed using reflexive thematic coding analysis, using codes derived from both the literature and emergent from the data. Results will be disseminated in academic, participant, and stakeholder circles. The analysis plan involves research assistants and investigators working collaboratively and independently, progressively comparing codebooks and results to reiteratively code for the eventual thematic results. RESULTS: Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted by the University of Auckland ethical review board on June 28, 2023, and an amendment to change survey questions and expand recruitment was approved on July 1, 2024. Online data collection closed in February 2025, and focus groups and interviews are scheduled to begin meeting in August 2025 with stakeholder engagement occurring throughout. Compensation was not provided for completion of the online survey, but will be provided (NZ $50 [US $28.93] vouchers) for focus group and interview participants when stage 3 of the project is undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: From early data analysis, we anticipate survey results will confirm our hypothesis that social media communities can provide increased access to information and support for women who have had or continue to have limited access to intimate health care due to a number of factors, including social (embarrassment), structural (location), or cultural (lack of health care provider training) factors. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/65288.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.634
GPT teacher head0.710
Teacher spread0.076 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsFrench-language works237,207