Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jun;37(6):1371-1378.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-020-01799-2. Epub 2020 May 7.

Infertility influencers: an analysis of information and influence in the fertility webspace

Jennifer K Blakemore  1 , Arielle H Bayer  2 , Meghan B Smith  3 , James A Grifo  4
Affiliations

Infertility influencers: an analysis of information and influence in the fertility webspace

Jennifer K Blakemore et al. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: To examine fertility-related social media accounts and influencers on two social media platforms.

Methods: The search function of Twitter (TW) and Instagram (IG) was used to generate a list of accounts with the terms: fertility, infertility, ttc, egg freezing, ivf, endometriosis, and reproductive. Accounts not in English, in private, with no posts in > 1 year, or with content unrelated to search terms were excluded. Accounts were assessed for author type; REI board certification (REI-BC); influencer (INF) status (> 10 K followers on IG; verified check mark on TW); account demographics; and content in last 5 posts. Statistical analysis included unpaired t tests, a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis, and stepwise multiple logistic regression.

Results: Seven hundred ten accounts were identified and 537 (278 TW, 259 IG) were included. Account types included societies, clinics, physicians, patients, groups, and "other." Instagram content (1290 posts reviewed) was primarily personal stories (31.7%) or inspiration/support (23.7%). Twitter content (1390 posts reviewed) was mostly promotion (28.2%) and research/education (20.2%). Thirty-nine accounts (12.5%) were influencers. Fertility influencers were most often awareness/support accounts (59.8% TW, 25.0% IG), patients (12.8% TW, 25% IG), or other (17.9% TW, 21.0% IG). Only 7.7% TW and 7.1% IG INFs were board-certified REI physicians. The best predictor for classification as an influencer was high activity (> 50 posts/month TW, > 10 posts/month IG).

Conclusion: As patients increasingly utilize social media to obtain and engage with health information, it is critical to understand the fertility-related SM landscape. This understanding may help to successfully enhance relationships with patients and ensure dissemination of accurate information.

Keywords: Infertility; Influencer; Patient education; Social media.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Content analysis by social media platform
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Top 11 individual hashtags by frequency on social media
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Cart analysis flowcharts
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hackworth BA, Kunz MB. Healthcare and social media: building relationships via social networks. Acad Health Care Manag J. 2011;7(2):1–14.
    1. Kane G, Fichman RG, Gallaugher J, Glaser J. Community relations 2.0. Harv Bus Rev. 2009;87(11):45–50. - PubMed
    1. Pew Research Center. Gender divide on social media use tilts toward men in developing economies, women in advanced economies. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/06/19/3-social-network-adoption-... Accessed August 20th, 2019.
    1. Broughton D, Schelble A, Cipolla K, Cho M, Franasiak J, Omurtag KR. Social media in the REI clinic: what do patients want? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(7):1259–1263. doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1189-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hammarberg K, Zosel R, Comoy C, Robertson S, Holden C, Deeks M, Johnson L. Fertility-related knowledge and information-seeking behaviour among people of reproductive age: a qualitative study. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2017;20(2):88–95. doi: 10.1080/14647273.2016.1245447. - DOI - PubMed