Understanding Intimate Health in Online Spaces Among Women in Aotearoa New Zealand: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.081 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.013 |
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".