Cited by 23Ovarian function and disordersReproductive Health and TechnologiesHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Qualitative study of self-reported experiences of infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome through on-line discussion forums

Open access
Authier, Magali, Normand, Caroline, Jego, Maëva, Gaborit, Bénédicte, Boubli, Léon, Courbiere, Blandine·2020·Annales d'Endocrinologie

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To highlight the self-reported experiences and disease perceptions of infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). METHODS: A qualitative study using an inductive method was conducted on infertile women with PCOS who shared their self-reported experiences on French-speaking on-line forums. RESULTS: 785 comments by 211 women on 7 forums were analyzed. Women complained of late diagnosis and lack of information regarding PCOS. PCOS and infertility showed negative psychological impact on daily life. This impact appeared to be alleviated by the sharing of knowledge and experience enabled by these forums. CONCLUSION: The self-reported experience of infertile women with PCOS is interesting for health practitioners. The psychological impact of PCOS and perceptions of illness appear to be improved by sharing experiences between women with PCOS, suggesting a beneficial support role of online discussion forums.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ando.2020.07.1110

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women with PCOS felt overwhelmed by the amount of information and doubted the information's reliability.

    “women with PCOS felt overwhelmed by the amount of information and doubted the information’s reliability [3840]”

    From Availability and Use of Digital Technology Among Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as [38]

    Section 3.1 says infertile women with PCOS found the quantity and complexity of information at medical consultations difficult to absorb. Section 3.3 reports that conflicting medical opinions led some to question physicians’ assessments and even their diagnosis, while section 4.1 discusses variable reliability of online information. The paper does not clearly report that the women doubted the reliability of the information as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Discussion forums appear beneficial by providing a source of support and sharing of empirical knowledge between those with PCOS.

    “Nevertheless, the results from this study show how discussion forums appear to be beneficial by providing a source of support and sharing of empirical knowledge between those with PCOS [90].”
  • Eight included studies in the scoping review related to PCOS content on websites.

    “Eight included studies related to PCOS content on websites [46,47,90,91,92,93,94,95] (Supplementary File S3).”
  • One website study looked at French language internet forums.

    “The majority (n = 5) involved analysis of content from search engine results [46,47,91,94,95], while one each looked at content in teen and women’s digital magazines [93], French language internet forums [90], and a specific PCOS-related website [92].”
  • Content analysis of French language internet forums revealed anxiety and psychological distress are frequently omitted by health practitioners.

    “Content analysis of French language internet forums revealed how those with PCOS perceive the medical information provided to them as inadequate or insufficient, as well as how anxiety and psychological distress are frequently omitted by their health practitioners [90].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 37 · Cited by 23

Authors
Authier, M., Normand, C., Jego, M., Gaborit, B., Boubli, L., & Courbiere, B.
Affiliations
  • Aix-Marseille Université (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Hôpital de la Conception (FR)
Corresponding author
Authier, Magali
Venue
Annales d'Endocrinologie
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
81
Issue
5
Pages
487-492
ISSN
0003-4266 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3064485967
Cited by
23
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annales d Endocrinologie (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
polycystic ovary syndrome, infertility, patient experience, online forums, illness perception, psychological impact, delayed diagnosis, lack of information, peer support, knowledge sharing
MeSH terms
Online Social Networking, Adult, Female, France, Humans, Infertility, Female, Middle Aged, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Quality of Life, Self-Help Groups, Patient Satisfaction, Internet, Information Dissemination, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Self Report, Patient Outcome Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review