Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social media in the REI clinic: what do patients want?

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To elicit patient preferences for social media utilization and content in the infertility clinic.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey study conducted in three US fertility practices. Women presenting to the infertility clinic for an initial or return visit were offered an anonymous voluntary social media survey. The survey elicited patient perception of whether social media use in the infertility clinic is beneficial, and preferences regarding topics of interest.

Results

A total of 244 surveys were collected during the study period, of which 54.5% were complete. Instagram is a more popular platform than Twitter across all age groups. Use of both platforms varies by age, with patients ≥ 40 less likely to be active users. The majority of respondents felt that social media provided benefit to the patient experience in the infertility clinic (79.9%). “Education regarding infertility testing and treatment” and “Myths and Facts about infertility” were the most popular topics for potential posts, with 93.4 and 92.0% of patients endorsing interest respectively. The least popular topic was “Newborn photos and birth announcements,” with only 47.4% endorsing interest. A little over half of respondents (56.3%) would feel comfortable with the clinic posting a picture of their infant. The vast majority of patients (96.2%) feel comfortable communicating electronically with their infertility clinic.

Conclusion

Patients are interested in the use of social media as a forum for patient education and support in the infertility clinic. Patient preferences regarding post topics should be carefully considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Most famous social network sites worldwide as of August 2017, ranked by number of active users. . 2017. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.

  2. Center PR. Social media update 2016 2016 http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.

  3. Stewart JB. Facebook has 50 minutes of your time each day. It wants more. New York Times, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/facebook-bends-the-rules-of-audience-engagement-to-its-advantage.html. Accessed 28 Aug 2017.

  4. Hammarberg K, Zosel R, Comoy C, Robertson S, Holden C, Deeks M, et al. Fertility-related knowledge and information-seeking behaviour among people of reproductive age: a qualitative study. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017;20(2):88–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2016.1245447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Franasiak JM, Ku LT, Barnhart KT, Online N, Communications C. Curbside consultations in the era of social media connectivity and the creation of the Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Forum. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(4):885–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Google search for “infertility support” 2017. https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=infertility+support&oq=infertility+support&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l4.996.3728.0.4077.20.19.0.0.0.0.123.1340.15j3.18.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..2.18.1337.0..0i131k1.8IRgjAi70dk. Accessed 30 Aug 2017.

  7. Epstein YM, Rosenberg HS, Grant TV, Hemenway BAN. Use of the internet as the only outlet for talking about infertility. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(3):507–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Omurtag K, Jimenez PT, Ratts V, Odem R, Cooper AR. The ART of social networking: how SART member clinics are connecting with patients online. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(1):88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Omurtag K, Turek P. Incorporating social media into practice: a blueprint for reproductive health providers. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;56(3):463–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182988cec.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, 4444 Forest Park Ave. Suite 3100, St. Louis, MO, 63108, USA

    Darcy E. Broughton, Allison Schelble, Kristina Cipolla & Kenan R. Omurtag

  2. Seattle Reproductive Medicine, 1505 Westlake Ave. N. Suite 400, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA

    Michele Cho

  3. Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, 140 Allen Rd., Basking Ridge, NJ, 07920, USA

    Jason Franasiak

Authors
  1. Darcy E. Broughton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allison Schelble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristina Cipolla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michele Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jason Franasiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kenan R. Omurtag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Darcy E. Broughton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 32 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Broughton, D.E., Schelble, A., Cipolla, K. et al. Social media in the REI clinic: what do patients want?. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 1259–1263 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1189-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1189-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation