ArticleJMIR infodemiology2025
Stillbirth Discourse on Instagram and X (Formerly Twitter): Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stillbirth, the loss of a fetus after the 20th week of pregnancy, affects about 1 in 160 deliveries in the United States and nearly 1 in 70 globally. It profoundly affects parents, often resulting in grief, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, exacerbated by societal stigma and a lack of public awareness. However, no comprehensive analysis has explored social media discussions of stillbirth. Objective: This study aimed to analyze stillbirth-related content on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter) by (1) identifying dominant themes using topic modeling, evaluated using latent Dirichlet allocation, non-negative matrix factorization (NMF), and BERTopic; (2) detecting influential hashtags via co-occurrence network analysis; (3) examining sentiments and emotions using transformer-based models; (4) categorizing visual representations of stillbirth on Instagram (Meta) through manual image analysis with a predefined codebook; and (5) screening for misinformation relating to stillbirth on X. Methods: Stillbirth-related posts were collected via RapidAPI (N=27,395), with Instagram posts (#stillbirth: n=7415; #stillbirthawareness: n=8312; 2023-2024) and X posts (#stillbirth: n=11,668; 2020-2024) analyzed using Python 3.12.7 (Python Software Foundation), with NetworkX for hashtag co-occurrence networks and the PageRank algorithm; comparative analyses were restricted to 2023-2024 due to Instagram application programming interface constraints. Topic modeling was evaluated using latent Dirichlet allocation, NMF, and BERTopic, with coherence scores guiding our model selection. Sentiment and emotion were analyzed using transformer-based RoBERTa and DistilRoBERTa. Misinformation screening was applied to X posts. On Instagram, 2 representative image samples (n=366) were manually categorized using a predefined codebook, with the interrater reliability being assessed using Cohen Kappa. Results: Health-related hashtags (eg, #COVID19) appeared more frequently on X. Topic modeling showed that NMF achieved the highest coherence scores (#stillbirthawareness=0.624 and #stillbirth=0.846 on Instagram, #stillbirth=0.816 on X). Medical misinformation appeared in 27.8% (149/536) of tweets linking COVID-19 vaccines to stillbirth. In the image analysis, "Image of text" was most common, followed by remembrance visuals (eg, gravesites and stillborn infants). The interrater reliability was strong, κ=0.837 (95% CI 0.773-0.891) and κ=0.821 (95% CI 0.755-0.879), with high Pearson correlation (r=0.999; P<.001) and no significant difference (χ²7=12.4; P=.09). The sentiment analysis found that positive sentiments exceeded negative sentiments. The emotion analysis showed that fear and sadness were dominant, with fear being more prevalent on X. Conclusions: Instagram emphasizes emotional expression while X focuses on public health and informational content. Evidence-based communication is necessary to counter misinformation, especially on X, whose real-time affordances amplify fear-based narratives during crises, such as COVID-19. In addition, Instagram's visual and commemorative content offers an opportunity to legitimize parental grief and to validate and humanize loss by directly involving bereaved parents in awareness campaigns. Platform-specific strategies and stronger moderation could enhance health discourse credibility. Future research should examine targeted approaches to counter misinformation and assist affected populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.