Cited by 38Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityReproductive Health and TechnologiesInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Online and in-person health-seeking for infertility

Slauson-Blevins, Kathleen S., McQuillan, Julia, Greil, Arthur L.·2013·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

Using data from Wave 1 (2004-2006) of the National Survey of Fertility Barriers (NSFB), a national probability sample of women ages 25-45, we examine online information-seeking among ever-infertile women. Of the 1352 women who met criteria for infertility, 459 (34%) neither talked to a doctor nor went online for information, 9% went online only for information, 32% talked to a doctor but did not go online, and 25% did both. Guided by Chrisman's Health-Seeking Model and previous research on Internet use to obtain health information, we employ multinomial logistic regression to compare these four groups of ever-infertile women. Findings generally support Chrisman's model. Infertile women tend to seek information online as a complement to, rather than as a substitute for, in-person health-seeking. Greater faith in the ability of medical science to treat infertility and greater perceived stigma were associated with higher odds of using the Internet to obtain information about infertility. In general, women who perceived the symptoms of infertility as more salient had higher odds of using both online and in-person or only in-person health-seeking compared to online health-seeking. Women with greater resources had higher odds of using online sources of information. Strong network encouragement to seek treatment was associated with higher odds of in-person health-seeking and combining in-person and online health-seeking compared to only going online or doing nothing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.10.019

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Previous studies have reported narrowed focus on infertility and excessive information seeking as behavioural features of anxiety.

    “A few studies have also reported on women’s narrowed focus on infertility to the exclusion of other activities, as well as excessive information seeking as behavioural features of anxiety.24–26”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 24 · Cited by 38

Authors
Slauson-Blevins, K. S., McQuillan, J., & Greil, A. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • Alfred University (US)
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
99
Pages
110-115
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2162951835
Cited by
38
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD044144)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
infertility, online health information seeking, health-seeking behavior, perceived stigma, infertility treatment, women's health
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Infertility, Female, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, United States, Internet, Information Seeking Behavior

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