Social media’s impact on patient provider choice
Objective This study aimed to investigate if social media (SM) impacts a patient’s provider choice in the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI). Methods This was a survey-based study completed in July 2022. A survey link was distributed using Amazon Mechanical Turk, which directe...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics 2024-03, Vol.41 (3), p.649-659 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 659 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 649 |
| container_title | Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics |
| container_volume | 41 |
| creator | Walker, Zachary Markert, Tahireh Berzansky, Isa Lanes, Andrea Srouji, Serene S. |
| description | Objective
This study aimed to investigate if social media (SM) impacts a patient’s provider choice in the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI).
Methods
This was a survey-based study completed in July 2022. A survey link was distributed using Amazon Mechanical Turk, which directed participants to a Qualtrics-based survey. Participants were 18–50 years old. The primary outcome was to identify the preferred method for finding a REI provider based on time spent on SM ( |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10815-023-03012-6 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2915989066</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2973000249</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-fe6148459325ec16711f6a6063426cadfeb2c518560be8f1e2e74c062834361a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1KAzEQx4MotlZfwIMsePESnSSbbPYoxS8oeFDPIU1nNWU_6mZX8OZr-Ho-ialbFTx4moH55T-THyGHDE4ZQHYWGGgmKXBBQQDjVG2RMZOZoJkQsB17kJpCqvSI7IWwBIBcc7FLRiIWxrUaE37XOG_LpMKFtx9v7yHx1cq6LmnqZGU7j3WXrNrmxS-wTdxT4x3uk53ClgEPNnVCHi4v7qfXdHZ7dTM9n1EnuOpogYqlOpW54BIdUxljhbIKlEi5cnZR4Jw7ybRUMEddMOSYpQ4U1yIVilkxISdDbtz_3GPoTOWDw7K0NTZ9MDxnMtc5KBXR4z_osunbOl4XqUzEj_M0jxQfKNc2IbRYmFXrK9u-GgZmbdQMRk00ar6MmnX00Sa6n0dJP0--FUZADECIo_oR29_d_8R-AoLBftg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2973000249</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Social media’s impact on patient provider choice</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Walker, Zachary ; Markert, Tahireh ; Berzansky, Isa ; Lanes, Andrea ; Srouji, Serene S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Walker, Zachary ; Markert, Tahireh ; Berzansky, Isa ; Lanes, Andrea ; Srouji, Serene S.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
This study aimed to investigate if social media (SM) impacts a patient’s provider choice in the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI).
Methods
This was a survey-based study completed in July 2022. A survey link was distributed using Amazon Mechanical Turk, which directed participants to a Qualtrics-based survey. Participants were 18–50 years old. The primary outcome was to identify the preferred method for finding a REI provider based on time spent on SM (< 1 h, 1–3 h, 3 + h).
Results
A total of 336 responses were analyzed. Fifty-four percent of respondents used SM < 1 h, 33.33% used 1–3 h, and 12.80% used 3 + h. The majority (69.05%) of respondents stated that they would seek out a REI provider/clinic if they had difficulty conceiving. Most respondents identified asking their primary care physician (44.64%) as the primary means for finding an REI provider/clinic and did not prefer to use SM. Although Facebook (< 1 h: 30.94%, 1–3 h: 31.25%, 3 + h: 27.91%) was the most utilized SM platform among respondents, YouTube was the preferred SM platform if respondents were to follow a REI clinic with a preference for posts focusing on education (< 1 h: 55.68%, 1–3 h: 43.12%, 3 + h: 58.14%) or stress management (< 1 h: 17.61%, 1–3 h: 29.36%, 3 + h: 20.94%).
Conclusion
Most respondents utilize traditional methods when choosing their REI provider or clinic and would not utilize SM. However, SM, primarily through YouTube, may be helpful for educating infertility patients and providing support and stress relief while they undergo treatment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-0468</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-7330</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-03012-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38231286</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Assisted Reproduction Technologies ; Educational Status ; Endocrinology ; Endocrinology - education ; Gynecology ; Human Genetics ; Humans ; Infertility ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Primary care ; Reproductive Medicine ; Social Media ; Social networks ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024-03, Vol.41 (3), p.649-659</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-fe6148459325ec16711f6a6063426cadfeb2c518560be8f1e2e74c062834361a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9761-8901</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10815-023-03012-6$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10815-023-03012-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38231286$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Walker, Zachary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Markert, Tahireh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berzansky, Isa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanes, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Srouji, Serene S.</creatorcontrib><title>Social media’s impact on patient provider choice</title><title>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</title><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><description>Objective
This study aimed to investigate if social media (SM) impacts a patient’s provider choice in the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI).
Methods
This was a survey-based study completed in July 2022. A survey link was distributed using Amazon Mechanical Turk, which directed participants to a Qualtrics-based survey. Participants were 18–50 years old. The primary outcome was to identify the preferred method for finding a REI provider based on time spent on SM (< 1 h, 1–3 h, 3 + h).
Results
A total of 336 responses were analyzed. Fifty-four percent of respondents used SM < 1 h, 33.33% used 1–3 h, and 12.80% used 3 + h. The majority (69.05%) of respondents stated that they would seek out a REI provider/clinic if they had difficulty conceiving. Most respondents identified asking their primary care physician (44.64%) as the primary means for finding an REI provider/clinic and did not prefer to use SM. Although Facebook (< 1 h: 30.94%, 1–3 h: 31.25%, 3 + h: 27.91%) was the most utilized SM platform among respondents, YouTube was the preferred SM platform if respondents were to follow a REI clinic with a preference for posts focusing on education (< 1 h: 55.68%, 1–3 h: 43.12%, 3 + h: 58.14%) or stress management (< 1 h: 17.61%, 1–3 h: 29.36%, 3 + h: 20.94%).
Conclusion
Most respondents utilize traditional methods when choosing their REI provider or clinic and would not utilize SM. However, SM, primarily through YouTube, may be helpful for educating infertility patients and providing support and stress relief while they undergo treatment.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Assisted Reproduction Technologies</subject><subject>Educational Status</subject><subject>Endocrinology</subject><subject>Endocrinology - education</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Human Genetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infertility</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Reproductive Medicine</subject><subject>Social Media</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1058-0468</issn><issn>1573-7330</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1KAzEQx4MotlZfwIMsePESnSSbbPYoxS8oeFDPIU1nNWU_6mZX8OZr-Ho-ialbFTx4moH55T-THyGHDE4ZQHYWGGgmKXBBQQDjVG2RMZOZoJkQsB17kJpCqvSI7IWwBIBcc7FLRiIWxrUaE37XOG_LpMKFtx9v7yHx1cq6LmnqZGU7j3WXrNrmxS-wTdxT4x3uk53ClgEPNnVCHi4v7qfXdHZ7dTM9n1EnuOpogYqlOpW54BIdUxljhbIKlEi5cnZR4Jw7ybRUMEddMOSYpQ4U1yIVilkxISdDbtz_3GPoTOWDw7K0NTZ9MDxnMtc5KBXR4z_osunbOl4XqUzEj_M0jxQfKNc2IbRYmFXrK9u-GgZmbdQMRk00ar6MmnX00Sa6n0dJP0--FUZADECIo_oR29_d_8R-AoLBftg</recordid><startdate>20240301</startdate><enddate>20240301</enddate><creator>Walker, Zachary</creator><creator>Markert, Tahireh</creator><creator>Berzansky, Isa</creator><creator>Lanes, Andrea</creator><creator>Srouji, Serene S.</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9761-8901</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240301</creationdate><title>Social media’s impact on patient provider choice</title><author>Walker, Zachary ; Markert, Tahireh ; Berzansky, Isa ; Lanes, Andrea ; Srouji, Serene S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-fe6148459325ec16711f6a6063426cadfeb2c518560be8f1e2e74c062834361a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Assisted Reproduction Technologies</topic><topic>Educational Status</topic><topic>Endocrinology</topic><topic>Endocrinology - education</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Human Genetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infertility</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Reproductive Medicine</topic><topic>Social Media</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Walker, Zachary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Markert, Tahireh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berzansky, Isa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lanes, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Srouji, Serene S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Walker, Zachary</au><au>Markert, Tahireh</au><au>Berzansky, Isa</au><au>Lanes, Andrea</au><au>Srouji, Serene S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Social media’s impact on patient provider choice</atitle><jtitle>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</jtitle><stitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</stitle><addtitle>J Assist Reprod Genet</addtitle><date>2024-03-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>649</spage><epage>659</epage><pages>649-659</pages><issn>1058-0468</issn><eissn>1573-7330</eissn><abstract>Objective
This study aimed to investigate if social media (SM) impacts a patient’s provider choice in the field of reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI).
Methods
This was a survey-based study completed in July 2022. A survey link was distributed using Amazon Mechanical Turk, which directed participants to a Qualtrics-based survey. Participants were 18–50 years old. The primary outcome was to identify the preferred method for finding a REI provider based on time spent on SM (< 1 h, 1–3 h, 3 + h).
Results
A total of 336 responses were analyzed. Fifty-four percent of respondents used SM < 1 h, 33.33% used 1–3 h, and 12.80% used 3 + h. The majority (69.05%) of respondents stated that they would seek out a REI provider/clinic if they had difficulty conceiving. Most respondents identified asking their primary care physician (44.64%) as the primary means for finding an REI provider/clinic and did not prefer to use SM. Although Facebook (< 1 h: 30.94%, 1–3 h: 31.25%, 3 + h: 27.91%) was the most utilized SM platform among respondents, YouTube was the preferred SM platform if respondents were to follow a REI clinic with a preference for posts focusing on education (< 1 h: 55.68%, 1–3 h: 43.12%, 3 + h: 58.14%) or stress management (< 1 h: 17.61%, 1–3 h: 29.36%, 3 + h: 20.94%).
Conclusion
Most respondents utilize traditional methods when choosing their REI provider or clinic and would not utilize SM. However, SM, primarily through YouTube, may be helpful for educating infertility patients and providing support and stress relief while they undergo treatment.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>38231286</pmid><doi>10.1007/s10815-023-03012-6</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9761-8901</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1058-0468 |
| ispartof | Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024-03, Vol.41 (3), p.649-659 |
| issn | 1058-0468 1573-7330 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2915989066 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Assisted Reproduction Technologies Educational Status Endocrinology Endocrinology - education Gynecology Human Genetics Humans Infertility Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Primary care Reproductive Medicine Social Media Social networks Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires Young Adult |
| title | Social media’s impact on patient provider choice |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-16T05%3A56%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Social%20media%E2%80%99s%20impact%20on%20patient%20provider%20choice&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20assisted%20reproduction%20and%20genetics&rft.au=Walker,%20Zachary&rft.date=2024-03-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=649&rft.epage=659&rft.pages=649-659&rft.issn=1058-0468&rft.eissn=1573-7330&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10815-023-03012-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2973000249%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2973000249&rft_id=info:pmid/38231286&rfr_iscdi=true |