IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v46y2026i6p767-779.html

Social Media Health Information Formats and Endometriosis Treatment-Seeking Intentions: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Alice Graham

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Brooke Nickel

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Kirsten McCaffery

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Jenny Doust

    (Australian Women and Girls’ Health Research Centre, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, QLD, Australia)

  • Erin Cvejic

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

  • Tessa Copp

    (Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia)

Abstract

Background Despite many women learning about endometriosis on social media, posts about the condition often fail to reflect current evidence. With the content and credibility of online health messages being found to influence behavioral intentions in other areas, this study aimed to explore how the format of endometriosis-related social media posts affects women’s intentions to get a laparoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. Design In this 2 × 2 × (2) online randomized controlled trial, Australian women aged 18 to 45 y who had no prior endometriosis diagnosis were randomly assigned to view 1 of 4 mock Instagram posts. Post content (personal anecdote v. nonnarrative, factual information) and source (high-credibility “World Health Organization†(WHO) account v. low credibility layperson account) varied across conditions. A within-subjects component investigated change in intention when participants were informed of new treatment guidelines. Results A total of 1,473 women were included in the analysis. Instagram posts featuring an anecdote produced higher treatment-seeking intentions (mean difference [MD] = 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04–0.39) and more favorable attitudes toward getting a laparoscopy compared with posts containing nonnarrative information (MD = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.01–0.25). While the WHO account was perceived as more credible (MD = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.17–0.41), there were no differences in intentions, perceived norms, or self-efficacy toward laparoscopy compared with the layperson account. Advising participants of new evidence regarding the limitations of laparoscopy reduced intentions to get the procedure (MD = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.21–0.37), irrespective of condition. Conclusions Findings demonstrate the power of anecdotes in shaping treatment preferences. Supplementing evidence-based information with personal anecdotes may ensure accurate yet engaging health information is used by online endometriosis communities to seek appropriate care. Trial registration. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( https://www.anzctr.org.au/ ; ACTRN12624000767505p) Highlights Framing health information on Instagram as a personal anecdote increased women’s intentions to get a laparoscopy for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis. We found few differences between high- and low-credibility sources. Informing participants of new evidence and clinical guidelines reduced intentions across all conditions, potentially reflecting more informed decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Alice Graham & Brooke Nickel & Kirsten McCaffery & Jenny Doust & Erin Cvejic & Tessa Copp, 2026. "Social Media Health Information Formats and Endometriosis Treatment-Seeking Intentions: A Randomized Controlled Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(6), pages 767-779, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:6:p:767-779
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X261436847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X261436847
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X261436847?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:6:p:767-779. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.