Misinformation on social media and other online platforms
When looking specifically at misinformation surrounding fertility, infertility, and assisted reproductive technology on social media, it is easy to see how the lack of gatekeepers to verify the accuracy of information can be problematic. There are various myths about fertility that are commonly believed, or beliefs that are not based on the sound research evidence. One example includes widespread online disinformation about stress and fertility, despite the lack of rigorous research supporting that stress causes infertility.iii Beliefs about getting pregnant due to adopting a child, bed rest after embryo transfers,i,v pineapple or Brazil nuts consumption for improved implantation, and many others, despite the lack of scientific evidence. One research study showed increased belief in infertility myths being associated with internet use.v
Further, the viral nature of sensationalized content, and the echo chamber effect (where users are predominantly exposed to information that aligns with their beliefs)vi can lead individuals and couples to make decisions regarding their fertility journey that may not be the best choices for them.
Inaccurate information about infertility and its treatment may lead people to spend time and money on unproven alternative therapies, to seek inappropriate medical interventions, and may cause unnecessary anxiety.vii It is vital, therefore, that those who use social media to seek guidance or community on their fertility journey understand the importance of informed engagement by having a good understanding of media literacy.
Media literacy includes understanding how to search for information that is backed by the most up-to-date research and reviewed by professionals working in reproductive medicine.viii In other words, when understanding health interventions, it is important to seek information that is evidence-based, as opposed to relying on anecdotes, marketing advertisements, blog journeys or sensationalized content.
How to spot misinformation
Misinformation on social media spans a spectrum, and it can be difficult for even the most informed social media users to spot at times. Some of the types of misinformation readers may encounter are presented below.ix
Many of these misinformation tactics play on emotions, exploiting individuals' vulnerabilities and desires for quick solutions or hope in challenging situations such as infertility. This can lead people to make decisions based on false promises or misleading information, and to spend time and money on things which are not going to be helpful.
How to fact-check
Fact-checking social media posts and videos related to fertility and infertility is crucial due to the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential impact misinformation can have on individuals' health decisions. Distinguishing between credible sources and misleading content requires a structured approach to fact-checking.xviii
Steps to fact-checking online health information:
- Verify the source: Begin by examining the source of the information. Is it from a reputable organization, medical institution, or clinician in the field of reproductive health?xix
- Check references: Health claims made without supporting evidence or references should be treated with caution as should health claims that fail to discuss the limitations of any supporting evidence.xx Even if a post has references, it is a good idea to look into the validity of these references, ensuring they are peer-reviewed scientific publications. Also, there is a hierarchy of scientific evidence, with meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized controlled trials presenting the strongest evidence. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonials are not a form of research evidence. It is wise to be wary here, as it is all too easy to pull a phrase or statistic out of context of a study and manipulate its meaning. Even with peer-reviewed sources, it is important to look at the entire body of evidence on a particular topic, not just one single study.
- Seek out trusted resources: There are some trustworthy sources where readers can search for reliable information grounded in the strongest research evidence (see section below on reliable sources).
- Discuss with medical professionals: Fertility specialists, gynecologists, and reproductive endocrinologists can provide expert insights based on current medical knowledge and evidence-based practices.
- Evaluate the language and tone: Misleading posts often use exaggerated language, emotional appeals, or sensationalist headlines to attract attention. Be wary of content that uses scare tactics or promises miraculous cures.xxi
- Look at the date of publication: Reproductive medicine is a field where new advances and research are evolving rapidly. Very old articles or videos may no longer reflect the latest understanding or practices.
- Take your time and look at more than one source to verify information: Research shows that quick decisions about the truthfulness of information seen online may increase the likelihood of believing misinformation.xxii It is a good idea to read the entire article and then look for additional reputable sources on the topic to help you understand if the information you see on one online source is consistent with what is said on other reputable sources.
As social media platforms have so far not been able to effectively stamp out the spread of misinformation, users can do their part to share information responsibly by doing the following:
- Educate themselves using credible sources (see below). The more familiar a person is with reliable information, the easier it is to spot false information
- Apply the fact-checking steps mentioned above before sharing information
- Report misinformation to the platform by flagging posts or videos that contain false/ misleading information about fertility.
Reliable sources
With so much information available online about infertility, fertility treatments, and reproductive health, knowing where to access reliable information is crucial. Readers can feel confident in the information they find on FertilityWisexxiii thanks to the guardrails in place to protect readers from inaccurate information: every article is researched using high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence, written by medical writers, and reviewed and checked by a team of doctors (or other experts in the field). The team comprises experts in reproductive endocrinology and reproductive medicine, urology, genetics, and other fields. Information is curated from published studies in quality journals, conferences, and medical textbooks, but written for a broader audience so that the information is understandable for non-expert readers.xxiv,xxv
For those seeking different or additional information from trustworthy sources, here are some suggestions that may be helpful:
Fertility Clinic/Clinical Care Providers
Many fertility clinics have websites with resources for patients, providing information on and detailing the types of treatments available. However, it is important to note that sometimes these websites are out of date or may unintentionally contain unsupported information. In addition, sometimes information may be provided by a marketing team as opposed to a healthcare team. It is useful to follow the fact-checking steps outlined above even on fertility clinic websites.
Asking questions and having clear communication with clinicians ensures that patients fully understand the procedures, potential outcomes, and any risks involved in their treatment to make informed decisions about their reproductive health.
Medical Journals
Specialized peer-reviewed journals such as Fertility and Sterility,xxvi Human Reproduction,xxvii and the Cochrane Libraryxxviii publish studies and analyses on fertility treatments, infertility causes, and related topics; however, many articles are behind a paywall, are typically written for clinicians and scientists, which can make parsing information from them challenging for non-academic audiences. Some articles contain design flaws which result in biased or unhelpful interpretations, so it is important that people understand the limitations of study design.
Government Health Sites
Government health sites like https://www.hhs.gov/ in the US, https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada.html in Canada, or www.nhs.uk in the UK are written in an accessible manner for laypeople and provide information on a multitude of health topics. Although government health institution websites are generally trusted and reliable, an approach of, “trust but verify” may be a helpful mantra when applying the fact-checking process described above to these sources.
National Organizations
Recognized organizations dedicated to reproductive health can provide evidence-based information on causes, treatments, and statistics related to fertility issues. Examples include the American Society for Reproductive Medicinexxix in the United States, the Canadian Fertility & Andrology Societyxxx in Canada, the British Fertility Societyxxxi in the United Kingdom, or The Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealandxxxii in Australia can provide more local information on the treatment options available in different jurisdictions.
Conclusion
While social media platforms offer unprecedented opportunities for information dissemination and community support, they also present significant challenges in discerning fact from fiction, particularly in sensitive areas such as fertility and infertility. Recognizing that influencers may have good intentions in sharing their stories, but often lack scientific literacy themselves and may share inaccurate information on their platforms, is crucial, as is knowing how to access reputable sources. This is not always easy, as disparities such as socioeconomic factors, geographic location, and language barriers can limit access to reliable healthcare information, which increases a person’s vulnerability to misinformation disseminated through social media channels. Addressing these disparities requires collaborative efforts from healthcare providers, policymakers, and technology companies to promote equitable access to accurate and culturally sensitive information.
Empowering individuals with the tools to critically evaluate information, advocating for equitable access to healthcare resources, and promoting responsible practices among influencers and social media platforms are crucial steps in safeguarding persons seeking information and community online while navigating their fertility journey.
i Blakemore, J. K., et al. (2020). Infertility influencers: an analysis of information and influence in the fertility webspace. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 37(6), 1371–1378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01799-2
ii Chee, R. M., et al. (2023). The impact of social media influencers on pregnancy, birth, and early parenting experiences: A systematic review. Midwifery, 120, 103623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2023.103623
iii Negris, O., et al. (2021). Emotional stress and reproduction: what do fertility patients believe?. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 38(4), 877–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02079-3
iv Cozzolino, M., et al. (2019). Bed rest after an embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 300(5), 1121–1130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05296-5
v Bunting, L., & Boivin, J. (2008). Knowledge about infertility risk factors, fertility myths and illusory benefits of healthy habits in young people. Human Reproduction, 23(8), 1858-1864. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den168
vi Cinelli, M., et al. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
vii Jones, G. L., et al. (2021). A baby at all costs? Exploring the use and provision of unproven adjuvant treatments in the context of IVF. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 39(05/06), 220-226. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1731789
viii Suarez-Lledo, V., & Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021). Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), e17187. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187
ix Muhammed T, S., & Mathew, S. K. (2022). The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media. International journal of data science and analytics, 13(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-022-00311-6
x Muhammed T, S., & Mathew, S. K. (2022). The disaster of misinformation: a review of research in social media. International journal of data science and analytics, 13(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-022-00311-6
xi Suarez-Lledo, V., & Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021). Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), e17187. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187
xii Wu, L., et al. (2019). Misinformation in social media. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 21(2), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373464.3373475
xiii Wang, Y., et al. (2019). Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media. Social science & medicine (1982), 240, 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
xiv Wu, L., et al. (2019). Misinformation in social media. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 21(2), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373464.3373475
xv Aïmeur, E., et al. (2023). Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review. Social network analysis and mining, 13(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5
xvi Blakemore, J. K., et al. (2020). Infertility influencers: an analysis of information and influence in the fertility webspace. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 37(6), 1371–1378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01799-2
xvii Djaoudene, O., et al. (2023). A Global Overview of Dietary Supplements: Regulation, Market Trends, Usage during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and Health Effects. Nutrients, 15(15), 3320. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15153320
xviii Xue, H., & Taylor, L. (2022). When do people believe, check, and share health rumors on social media? Effects of evidence type, health literacy, and health knowledge. Journal of Health Psychology, 28(7), 607-619. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053221125992
xix Gray, B. (2017). 10 Tips for Fighting Fake News: How to Fact Check Like a Pro. LexisNexis. https://www.lexisnexis.com/pdf/nexis/Nexis-webinar-how-to-fact-check-like-a-pro.pdf
xx Negris, O., et al. (2021). Emotional stress and reproduction: what do fertility patients believe?. Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 38(4), 877–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-021-02079-3
xxi Gray, B. (2017). 10 Tips for Fighting Fake News: How to Fact Check Like a Pro. LexisNexis. https://www.lexisnexis.com/pdf/nexis/Nexis-webinar-how-to-fact-check-like-a-pro.pdf
xxii Leeder, C. (2019). How college students evaluate and share “fake news” stories. Library & Information Science Research, 41(3), 100967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100967
xxiii Fertilitywise. (2024). Featured fertility research topics. https://www.fertilitywise.com/research
xxiv Fertilitywise. (2024). About Fertilitywise. https://www.fertilitywise.com/our-story
xxv Fertilitywise. (2024). Medical reviewers. https://www.fertilitywise.com/medical-reviewers
xxvi Fertility and Sterility. (2024). https://www.fertstert.org/
xxvii Human Reproduction. (2024). Oxford Academic. https://academic.oup.com/humrep?login=false
xxviii Cochrane Reviews. (2024). https://www.cochranelibrary.com/
xxix American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2024). https://www.asrm.org/
xxx Canadian Fertility & Andrology society. (2024). https://cfas.ca/index.html
xxxi British Fertility Society. (2024). https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/
xxxii Fertility Society of Australia and New Zealand. (2024). https://www.fertilitysociety.com.au/