Dodging Dengue In The US
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Dengue On The Rise
We wrote recently about dengue outbreaks in the Americas, with Puerto Rico declaring an epidemic. Cases are now being reported in Florida too, and are likely to spread, so it’s good to be prepared, if your climate is of the “warm and humid” kind.
If you want to catch up on the news first, here you go:
- UN health agency cites tenfold increase in reported cases of dengue over the last generation
- Puerto Rico has declared an epidemic following a spike in dengue cases
- Dengue fever confirmed in Florida Keys as US on watch for rise in mosquito illness
Note: dengue is far from unheard of in Florida, but the rising average temperatures in each year mean that each year stands a good chance of seeing more cases than the previous. It’s been climbing since at least 2017, took a dip during the time of COVID restrictions keeping people at home more, and then for the more recent years has been climbing again since.
What actually is it?
Dengue is a viral, mosquito-borne disease, characterized by fever, vomiting, muscle pain, and a rash, in about 1 in 4 cases.
Which can sound like “you’ll know if you have it”, but in fact it’s usually asymptomatic for a week or more after infection, so, watch out!
What next, if those symptoms appear?
The good news is: the fever will usually last less than a week
The bad news is: a day or so after that the fever subsided, the more serious symptoms are likely to start—if they’re going to.
If you’re unlucky enough to be one of the 1 in 20 who get the serious symptoms, then you can expect abdominal cramps, repeat vomiting, bleeding from various orifices (you may not get them all, but all are possible), and (hardly surprising, given the previous items) “extreme fatigue and restlessness”.
If you get those symptoms, then definitely get to an ER as soon as possible, as dengue can become life-threatening within hours of such.
Read more: CDC | Symptoms of Dengue and Testing
While there is not a treatment for dengue per se, the Emergency Room will be better able to manage your symptoms and thus keep you alive long enough for them to pass.
If you’d like much more detail (on symptoms, seriousness, at-risk demographics, and prognosis) than what the CDC offers, then…
Read more: BMJ | Dengue Fever
Ok, so how do we dodge the dengue?
It sounds flippant to say “don’t get bitten”, but that’s it. However, there are tips are not getting bitten:
- Use mosquito-repellent, but it has to contain >20% DEET, so check labels
- Use mosquito nets where possible (doors, windows, etc, and the classic bed-tent net is not a bad idea either)
- Wear clothing that covers your skin, especially during the day—it can be light clothing; it doesn’t need to be a HazMat suit! But it does need to reduce the area of attack to reduce the risk of bites.
- Limit standing water around your home—anything that can hold even a small amount of standing water is a potential mosquito-breeding ground. Yes, even if it’s a crack in your driveway or a potted bromeliad.
Further reading
You might also like to check out:
Stickers and wristbands aren’t a reliable way to prevent mosquito bites. Here’s why
…and in case dengue wasn’t bad enough:
Mosquitoes can spread the flesh-eating Buruli ulcer. Here’s how you can protect yourself
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Cherries vs Cranberries – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing cherries to cranberries, we picked the cherries.
Why?
In terms of macros, cherries have a little more protein (but it’s not much) while cranberries have a little more fiber. Despite this, cherries have the lower glycemic index—about half that of cranberries.
In the category of vitamins, cherries have a lot more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B9, and a little more choline, while cranberries have more of vitamins B5, B6, C, E, and K. A modest win for cherries here.
When it comes to minerals, things are more divided: cherries have more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc, while cranberries have more manganese. An easy win for cherries here.
This all adds up to a total win for cherries, but both of these fruits are great and both have their own beneficial properties (see our main features below!)
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
- Cherries’ Very Healthy Wealth Of Benefits!
- Health Benefits Of Cranberries (But: You’d Better Watch Out)
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Intuitive Eating Might Not Be What You Think
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
In our recent Expert Insights main features, we’ve looked at two fairly opposing schools of thought when it comes to managing what we eat.
First we looked at:
What Flexible Dieting Really Means
…and the notion of doing things imperfectly for greater sustainability, and reducing the cognitive load of dieting by measuring only the things that are necessary.
And then in opposition to that,
What Are The “Bright Lines” Of Bright Line Eating?
…and the notion of doing things perfectly so as to not go astray, and reducing the cognitive load of dieting by having hard-and-fast rules that one does not second-guess or reconsider later when hungry.
Today we’re going to look at Intuitive Eating, and what it does and doesn’t mean.
Intuitive Eating does mean paying attention to hunger signals (each way)
Intuitive Eating means listening to one’s body, and responding to hunger signals, whether those signals are saying “time to eat” or “time to stop”.
A common recommendation is to “check in” with one’s body several times per meal, reflecting on such questions as:
- Do I have hunger pangs? Would I seek food now if I weren’t already at the table?
- If I hadn’t made more food than I’ve already eaten so far, would that have been enough, or would I have to look for something else to eat?
- Am I craving any of the foods that are still before me? Which one(s)?
- How much “room” do I feel I still have, really? Am I still in the comfort zone, and/or am I about to pass into having overeaten?
- Am I eating for pleasure only at this point? (This is not inherently bad, by the way—it’s ok to have a little more just for pleasure! But it is good to note that this is the reason we’re eating, and take it as a cue to slow down and remember to eat mindfully, and enjoy every bite)
- Have I, in fact, passed the point of pleasure, and I’m just eating because it’s in front of me, or so as to “not be wasteful”?
See also: Interoception: Improving Our Awareness Of Body Cues
And for that matter: Mindful Eating: How To Get More Out Of What’s On Your Plate
Intuitive Eating is not “80:20”
When it comes to food, the 80:20 rule is the idea of having 80% of one’s diet healthy, and the other 20% “free”, not necessarily unhealthy, but certainly not moderated either.
Do you know what else the 80:20 food rule is?
A food rule.
Intuitive Eating doesn’t do those.
The problem with food rules is that they can get us into the sorts of problems described in the studies showing how flexible dieting generally works better than rigid dieting.
Suddenly, what should have been our free-eating 20% becomes “wait, is this still 20%, or have I now eaten so much compared to the healthy food, that I’m at 110% for my overall food consumption today?”
Then one gets into “Well, I’ve already failed to do 80:20 today, so I’ll try again tomorrow [and binge meanwhile, since today is already written off]”
See also: Eating Disorders: More Varied (And Prevalent) Than People Think
It’s not “eat anything, anytime”, either
Intuitive Eating is about listening to your body, and your brain is also part of your body.
- If your body is saying “give me sugar”, your brain might add the information “fruit is healthier than candy”.
- If your body is saying “give me fat”, your brain might add the information “nuts are healthier than fried food”
- If your body is saying “give me salt”, your brain might add the information “kimchi is healthier than potato chips”
That doesn’t mean you have to swear off candy, fried food, or potato chips.
But it does mean that you might try satisfying your craving with the healthier option first, giving yourself permission to have the less healthy option afterwards if you still want it (you probably won’t).
See also:
I want to eat healthily. So why do I crave sugar, salt and carbs?
Want to know more about Intuitive Eating?
You might like this book that we reviewed previously:
Intuitive Eating – by Evelyn Tribole and Elyse Resch
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
From Dr. Oz to Heart Valves: A Tiny Device Charted a Contentious Path Through the FDA
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
In 2013, the FDA approved an implantable device to treat leaky heart valves. Among its inventors was Mehmet Oz, the former television personality and former U.S. Senate candidate widely known as “Dr. Oz.”
In online videos, Oz has called the process that brought the MitraClip device to market an example of American medicine firing “on all cylinders,” and he has compared it to “landing a man on the moon.”
MitraClip was designed to spare patients from open-heart surgery by snaking hardware into the heart through a major vein. Its manufacturer, Abbott, said it offered new hope for people severely ill with a condition called mitral regurgitation and too frail to undergo surgery.
“It changed the face of cardiac medicine,” Oz said in a video.
But since MitraClip won FDA approval, versions of the device have been the subject of thousands of reports to the agency about malfunctions or patient injuries, as well as more than 1,100 reports of patient deaths, FDA records show. Products in the MitraClip line have been the subject of three recalls. A former employee has alleged in a federal lawsuit that Abbott promoted the device through illegal inducements to doctors and hospitals. The case is pending, and Abbott has denied illegally marketing the device.
The MitraClip story is, in many ways, a cautionary tale about the science, business, and regulation of medical devices.
Manufacturer-sponsored research on the device has long been questioned. In 2013, an outside adviser to the FDA compared some of the data marshaled in support of its approval to “poop.”
The FDA expanded its approval of MitraClip to a wider set of patients in 2019, based on a clinical trial in which Abbott was deeply involved and despite conflicting findings from another study.
In the three recalls, the first of which warned of potentially deadly consequences, neither the manufacturer nor the FDA withdrew inventory from the market. The company told doctors it was OK for them to continue using the recalled products.
In response to questions for this article, both Abbott and the FDA described MitraClip as safe and effective.
“With MitraClip, we’re addressing the needs of people with MR who often have no other options,” Abbott spokesperson Brent Tippen said. “Patients suffering from mitral regurgitation have severely limited quality of life. MitraClip can significantly improve survival, freedom for hospitalization and quality of life via a minimally invasive, now common procedure.”
An FDA spokesperson, Audra Harrison, said patient safety “is the FDA’s highest priority and at the forefront of our work in medical device regulation.”
She said reports to the FDA about malfunctions, injuries, and deaths that the device may have caused or contributed to are “consistent” with study results the FDA reviewed for its 2013 and 2019 approvals.
In other words: They were expected.
Inspiration in Italy
When a person has mitral regurgitation, blood flows backward through the mitral valve. Severe cases can lead to heart failure.
With MitraClip, flaps of the valve — known as “leaflets” — are clipped together at one or more points to achieve a tighter seal when they close. The clips are deployed via a catheter threaded through a major vein, typically from an incision in the groin. The procedure offers an alternative to connecting the patient to a heart-lung machine and repairing or replacing the mitral valve in open-heart surgery.
Oz has said in online videos that he got the idea after hearing a doctor describe a surgical technique for the mitral valve at a conference in Italy. “And on the way home that night, on a plane heading back to Columbia University, where I was on the faculty, I wrote the patent,” he told KFF Health News.
A patent obtained by Columbia in 2001, one of several associated with MitraClip, lists Oz first among the inventors.
But a Silicon Valley-based startup, Evalve, would develop the device. Evalve was later acquired by Abbott for about $400 million.
“I think the engineers and people at Evalve always cringe a little bit when they see Mehmet taking a lot of, you know, basically claiming responsibility for what was a really extraordinary team effort, and he was a small to almost no player in that team,” one of the company’s founders, cardiologist Fred St. Goar, told KFF Health News.
Oz did not respond to a request for comment on that statement.
As of 2019, the MitraClip device cost $30,000 per procedure, according to an article in a medical journal. According to the Abbott website, more than 200,000 people around the world have been treated with MitraClip.
Oz filed a financial disclosure during his unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate in 2022 that showed him receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual MitraClip royalties.
Abbott recently received FDA approval for TriClip, a variation of the MitraClip system for the heart’s tricuspid valve.
Endorsed ‘With Trepidation’
Before the FDA said yes to MitraClip in 2013, agency staffers pushed back.
Abbott had originally wanted the device approved for “patients with significant mitral regurgitation,” a relatively broad term. After the FDA objected, the company narrowed its proposal to patients at too-high risk for open-heart surgery.
Even then, in an analysis, the FDA identified “fundamental” flaws in Abbott’s data.
One example: The data compared MitraClip patients with patients who underwent open-heart surgery for valve repair — but the comparison might have been biased by differences in the expertise of doctors treating the two groups, the FDA analysis said. While MitraClip was implanted by a highly select, experienced group of interventional cardiologists, many of the doctors doing the open-heart surgeries had performed only a “very low volume” of such operations.
FDA “approval is not appropriate at this time as major questions of safety and effectiveness, as well as the overall benefit-risk profile for this device, remain unanswered,” the FDA said in a review prepared for a March 2013 meeting of a committee of outside advisers to the agency.
Some committee members expressed misgivings. “If your right shoe goes into horse poop and your left shoe goes into dog poop, it’s still poop,” cardiothoracic surgeon Craig Selzman said, according to a transcript.
The committee voted 5-4 against MitraClip on the question of whether it proved effective. But members voted 8-0 that they considered the device safe and 5-3 that the benefits of the device outweighed its risks.
Selzman voted yes on the last question “with trepidation,” he said at the time.
In October 2013, the FDA approved the MitraClip Clip Delivery System for a narrower group of patients: those with a particular type of mitral regurgitation who were considered a surgery risk.
“The reality is, there is no perfect procedure,” said Jason Rogers, an interventional cardiologist and University of California-Davis professor who is an Abbott consultant. The company referred KFF Health News to Rogers as an authority on MitraClip. He called MitraClip “extremely safe” and said some patients treated with it are “on death’s door to begin with.”
“At least you’re trying to do something for them,” he said.
Conflicting Studies
In 2019, the FDA expanded its approval of MitraClip to a wider set of patients.
The agency based that decision on a clinical trial in the United States and Canada that Abbott not only sponsored but also helped design and manage. It participated in site selection and data analysis, according to a September 2018 New England Journal of Medicine paper reporting the trial results. Some of the authors received consulting fees from Abbott, the paper disclosed.
A separate study in France reached a different conclusion. It found that, for some patients who fit the expanded profile, the device did not significantly reduce deaths or hospitalizations for heart failure over a year.
The French study, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in August 2018, was funded by the government of France and Abbott. As with the North American study, some of the researchers disclosed they had received money from Abbott. However, the write-up in the journal said Abbott played no role in the design of the French trial, the selection of sites, or in data analysis.
Gregg Stone, one of the leaders of the North American study, said there were differences between patients enrolled in the two studies and how they were medicated. In addition, outcomes were better in the North American study in part because doctors in the U.S. and Canada had more MitraClip experience than their counterparts in France, Stone said.
Stone, a clinical trial specialist with a background in interventional cardiology, acknowledged skepticism toward studies sponsored by manufacturers.
“There are some people who say, ‘Oh, well, you know, these results may have been manipulated,’” he said. “But I can guarantee you that’s not the truth.”
‘Nationwide Scheme’
A former Abbott employee alleges in a lawsuit that after MitraClip won approval, the company promoted the device to doctors and hospitals using inducements such as free marketing support, the chance to participate in Abbott clinical trials, and payments for participating in “sham speaker programs.”
The former employee alleges that she was instructed to tell referring physicians that if they observed mitral regurgitation in their patients to “just send it” for a MitraClip procedure because “everything can be clipped.” She also alleges that, using a script, she was told to promote the device to hospital administrators based on financial advantages such as “growth opportunities through profitable procedures, ancillary tests, and referral streams.”
The inducements were part of a “nationwide scheme” of illegal kickbacks that defrauded government health insurance programs including Medicare and Medicaid, the lawsuit claims.
The company denied doing anything illegal and said in a court filing that “to help its groundbreaking therapy reach patients, Abbott needed to educate cardiologists and other healthcare providers.”
Those efforts are “not only routine, they are laudable — as physicians cannot use, or refer a patient to another doctor who can use, a device that they do not understand or in some cases even know about,” the company said in the filing.
Under federal law, the person who filed the suit can receive a share of any money the government recoups from Abbott. The suit was filed by a company associated with a former employee in Abbott’s Structural Heart Division, Lisa Knott. An attorney for the company declined to comment and said Knott had no comment.
Reports to the FDA
As doctors started using MitraClip, the FDA began receiving reports about malfunctions and cases in which the product might have caused or contributed to a death or an injury.
According to some reports, clips detached from valve flaps. Flaps became damaged. Procedures were aborted. Mitral leakage worsened. Doctors struggled to control the device. Clips became “entangled in chordae” — cord-like structures also known as heartstrings that connect the valve flaps to the heart muscle. Patients treated with MitraClip underwent corrective operations.
As of March 2024, the FDA had received more than 17,000 reports documenting more than 22,000 “events” involving mitral valve repair devices, FDA data shows. All but about 200 of those reports mention one iteration of MitraClip or another, a KFF Health News review of FDA data found.
Almost all the reports came from Abbott. The FDA requires manufacturers to submit reports when they learn of mishaps potentially related to their devices.
The reports are not proof that devices caused problems, and the same event might be reported multiple times. Other events may go unreported.
Despite the reports’ limitations, the FDA provides an analysis of them for the public on its website.
MitraClip’s risks weren’t a surprise.
Like the rapid-fire fine print in television ads for prescription drugs, the original product label for the device listed more than 60 types of potential complications.
Indeed, during clinical research on the device, about 6% of patients implanted with MitraClip died within 30 days, according to the label. Almost 1 in 4 — 23.6% – were dead within a year.
The FDA spokesperson, Harrison, pointed to a study originally published in 2021 in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, based on a central registry of mitral valve procedures, that found lower rates of death after MitraClip went on the market.
“These data confirmed that the MitraClip device remains safe and effective in the real-world setting,” Harrison said.
But the study’s authors, several of whom disclosed financial or other connections to Abbott, said data was missing for more than a quarter of patients one year after the procedure.
A major measure of success would be the proportion of MitraClip patients who are alive “with an acceptable quality of life” a year after undergoing the procedure, the study said. Because such information was available for fewer than half of the living patients, “we have omitted those outcomes from this report,” the authors wrote.
If you’ve had an experience with MitraClip or another medical device and would like to tell KFF Health News about it, click here to share your story with us.
KFF Health News audience engagement producer Tarena Lofton contributed to this report.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
An RSV vaccine has been approved for people over 60. But what about young children?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has approved a vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in Australia for the first time. The shot, called Arexvy and manufactured by GSK, will be available by prescription to adults over 60.
RSV is a contagious respiratory virus which causes an illness similar to influenza, most notably in babies and older adults.
So while it will be good to have an RSV vaccine available for older people, where is protection up to for the youngest children?
A bit about RSV
RSV was discovered in chimpanzees with respiratory illness in 1956, and was soon found to be a common cause of illness in humans.
There are two key groups of people we would like to protect from RSV: babies (up to about one year old) and people older than 60.
Babies tend to fill up hospitals during the RSV season in late spring and winter in large numbers, but severe infection requiring admission to intensive care is less common.
In babies and younger children, RSV generally causes a wheezing asthma-like illness (bronchiolitis), but can also cause pneumonia and croup.
Although there are far fewer hospital admissions among older people, they can develop severe disease and die from an infection.
Babies account for the majority of hospitalisations with RSV.
Prostock-studio/ShutterstockRSV vaccines for older people
For older adults, there are actually several RSV vaccines in the pipeline. The recent Australian TGA approval of Arexvy is likely to be the first of several, with other vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna currently in development.
The GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines are similar. They both contain a small component of the virus, called the pre-fusion protein, that the immune system can recognise.
Both vaccines have been shown to reduce illness from RSV by more than 80% in the first season after vaccination.
In older adults, side effects following Arexvy appear to be similar to other vaccines, with a sore arm and generalised aches and fatigue frequently reported.
Unlike influenza vaccines which are given each year, it is anticipated the RSV vaccine would be a one-off dose, at least at this stage.
Protecting young children from RSV
Younger babies don’t tend to respond well to some vaccines due to their immature immune system. To prevent other diseases, this can be overcome by giving multiple vaccine doses over time. But the highest risk group for RSV are those in the first few months of life.
To protect this youngest age group from the virus, there are two potential strategies available instead of vaccinating the child directly.
The first is to give a vaccine to the mother and rely on the protective antibodies passing to the infant through the placenta. This is similar to how we protect babies by vaccinating pregnant women against influenza and pertussis (whooping cough).
The second is to give antibodies directly to the baby as an injection. With both these strategies, the protection provided is only temporary as antibodies wane over time, but this is sufficient to protect infants through their highest risk period.
Women could be vaccinated during pregnancy to protect their baby in its first months of life.
Image Point Fr/ShutterstockAbrysvo, the Pfizer RSV vaccine, has been trialled in pregnant women. In clinical trials, this vaccine has been shown to reduce illness in infants for up to six months. It has been approved in pregnant women in the United States, but is not yet approved in Australia.
An antibody product called palivizumab has been available for many years, but is only partially effective and extremely expensive, so has only been given to a small number of children at very high risk.
A newer antibody product, nirsevimab, has been shown to be effective in reducing infections and hospitalisations in infants. It was approved by the TGA in November, but it isn’t yet clear how this would be accessed in Australia.
What now?
RSV, like influenza, is a major cause of respiratory illness, and the development of effective vaccines represents a major advance.
While the approval of the first vaccine for older people is an important step, many details are yet to be made available, including the cost and the timing of availability. GSK has indicated its vaccine should be available soon. While the vaccine will initially only be available on private prescription (with the costs paid by the consumer), GSK has applied for it to be made free under the National Immunisation Program.
In the near future, we expect to hear further news about the other vaccines and antibodies to protect those at higher risk from RSV disease, including young children.
Allen Cheng, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Monash University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Applesauce vs Cranberry Sauce – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing applesauce to cranberry sauce, we picked the applesauce.
Why?
It mostly comes down to the fact that apples are sweeter than cranberries:
In terms of macros, they are both equal on fiber (both languishing at a paltry 1.1g/100g), and/but cranberry sauce has 4x the carbs, of which, more than 3x the sugar. Simply, cranberry sauce recipes invariably have a lot of added sugar, while applesauce recipes don’t need that. So this is a huge relative win for applesauce (we say “relative” because it’s still not great, but cranberry sauce is far worse).
In the category of vitamins, applesauce has more of vitamins B1, B2, B5, B6, B9, and C, while cranberry sauce has more of vitamins E, K, and choline. A more moderate win for applesauce this time.
When it comes to minerals, applesauce has more calcium, copper, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium, while cranberry sauce has more iron, manganese, and selenium. Another moderate win for applesauce.
Since we’ve discussed relative amounts rather than actual quantities, it’s worth noting that neither sauce is a good source of vitamins or minerals, and neither are close to just eating the actual fruits. Just, cranberry sauce is the relatively more barren of the two.
While cranberries famously have some UTI-fighting properties, you cannot usefully gain this benefit from a sauce that (with its very high sugar content and minimal fiber) actively feeds the very C. albicans you are likely trying to kill.
All in all, a pitiful show of nutritional inadequacy from these two products today, but one is relatively less bad than the other, and that’s the applesauce.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
From Apples to Bees, and High-Fructose Cs: Which Sugars Are Healthier, And Which Are Just The Same?
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
How influencers and content creators discuss birth control on social media: What research shows
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
News articles in recent weeks have documented the spread of misinformation about hormonal birth control methods on popular social media platforms like TikTok, YouTube and X, formerly called Twitter. Influencers with large and small followings are sharing unsubstantiated claims about the side effects of contraceptives, while directly or indirectly encouraging others to stop using them.
This trend has not escaped researchers, who for several years have been investigating what people who can get pregnant are posting on social media platforms about hormonal and non-hormonal birth control methods. Understanding the drivers of these trends is important because they have implications for policy and patient care, according to researchers. Some worry that during the post-Dobbs era, when there are continued strikes against reproductive rights in the U.S., misinformation about birth control on social media could have a negative influence on contraceptive preferences — potentially leading to more unwanted pregnancies.
More than 90% of women of reproductive age have used at least one contraceptive method, according to a 2023 report by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. However, the report also finds that the use of male condoms and withdrawal methods increased between 2006 and 2019, while the use of the birth control pill decreased. Non-hormonal contraception methods, including condoms, spermicides, withdrawal and menstrual cycle tracking, are 10% or less effective than hormonal contraceptives. The only exceptions are surgical sterilization and the copper intrauterine device.
To be sure, not all birth control-related content posted on social media platforms is negative, studies show. Health care professionals are sharing educational material with a high rate of engagement and non-health care professional users share their positive experiences with the birth control methods they use.
But as you will see in the studies curated below, researchers also find that social media users, including influencers, share inaccurate information about hormonal contraceptives on various social media platforms, discuss their discontinuation of birth control in favor of non-hormonal methods and engage in unsubstantiated fear-mongering of hormonal contraceptives.
Researchers also have learned that the content posted on social media platforms has changed in tone over time, mirroring the shift in the national political discourse.
In a 2021 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, researchers analyzed more than 800,000 English-language tweets mentioning at least one contraceptive method between March 2006, when Twitter was founded, and December 2019. They coded the sentiment of tweets as positive, neutral or negative.
“What we found over time was that the number of neutral tweets went down for each and every one of the birth control methods, and people became more polarized with regards to how they talk on these social media platforms over those 13 years,” says study co-author Dr. Deborah Bartz, an OB-GYN at Brigham and Women’s Hospital with expertise in complex family planning and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School.
In a February 2024 commentary in the Journal of Women’s Health, University of Delaware researchers Emily Pfender and Leah Fowler argue that ongoing dialogue about contraception on social media provides “a glimpse into public sentiment about available options” to people who can get pregnant.
The authors also note that misinformation and disinformation about hormonal contraception may have a larger effect on health disparities, especially among historically marginalized groups who may already mistrust the medical establishment.
“This may contribute to unintended pregnancy and delayed care, further widening health disparities and hindering progress toward equitable reproductive health outcomes,” Pfender and Fowler write.
Side effects
There are known side effects to hormonal birth control methods, including headaches, nausea, sore breasts and spotting. Most are mild and disappear with continued use or with switching to another method. Among hormonal contraceptives, only the Depo-Provera injection has been linked with weight gain, studies show.
But some social media influencers have spread false claims about the potential side effects of hormonal birth control methods, ranging from infertility to abortion to unattractiveness. Despite these false claims, physicians and professional organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists find today’s contraceptive options safe and very effective.
“They’re about the most low-risk prescription that I give,” says Dr. Megana Dwarakanath, an adolescent medicine physician in Pittsburgh. “I always joke that if something goes wrong in someone’s life, they’re within the reproductive years, it always gets blamed on birth control.”
Dwarakanath says her young patients are most worried about two side effects: weight gain and mood. “Those are the things that they will almost always attribute to their birth control at a time that their bodies are also changing very rapidly,” she says. “Things like mental health diagnoses or personality disorders also tend to crop up during the time young people have started or have been on birth control.”
Most research on the link between oral contraceptives and cancer risk comes from observational studies, according to the National Cancer Institute. Overall, the studies have consistently shown that the risks of breast and cervical cancer are slightly increased for women who use oral contraceptives, whereas the risk of endometrial, ovarian and colorectal cancers are reduced.
The use of hormonal birth control has also been associated with an increase in the risk of developing blood clots, studies show. But that risk is not universal for everyone who takes hormonal birth control. This risk is higher for women 35 and older, those who smoke, are very overweight or have a history of cardiovascular disease. Overall, 3 to 9 out of 10,000 women who take the pill are at risk of developing blood clots within a given year. The risk for women who don’t take the pill is 1 to 5 out of 10,000.
There is no association between the pill and mood disorders, according to a large body of research, including a 2021 cohort study of nearly 740,000 young women.
It’s worth noting the dearth of research into women’s reproductive health due to chronic underfunding of women’s health research. An analysis of funding by the U.S. National Institutes of Health finds that in nearly three-quarters of the cases where a disease affects mainly one gender, the institute’s funding pattern favored males. Either the disease affected more women and was underfunded, or the disease affected more men and was overfunded, according to the 2021 study published in the Journal of Women’s Health.
Aside from underfunding, conducting robust research into the long-term effects of birth control is complex.
“Historically, people haven’t felt that it’s ethically OK to randomize people to birth control methods in large part because the outcome of unintended pregnancy is greater,” for people who are given the placebo, Bartz says.
Research on birth control misinformation on social media
Social media use is widespread among young adults. More than 90% of Americans between 18 and 29 reported ever using YouTube, while 78% said they had used Instagram, 62% used TikTok and 42% used Twitter, according to a 2023 survey of 5,733 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center.
These years overlap with the demographic of people who are most likely to use birth control. And because the use of contraceptives is less stigmatized today, people are more likely to talk with one another about their questions and concerns or share that information online.
In addition to investigating the general landscape of social media posts about birth control, researchers are also interested in the type of content influencers, who typically have 20,000 or more followers, post, because of their persuasive power over their audiences.
“When influencers disclose personal experiences and beliefs about various topics, audience members tend to form similar attitudes especially when they feel connected to the influencer,” Pfender and M. Marie Devlin write in a 2023 study published in the journal Health Communication.
Below we have curated several studies published in recent years documenting the spread of birth control misinformation on social media. The roundup is followed by a quick reference guide on female contraceptives and their actual potential side effects.
Contraceptive Content Shared on Social Media: An Analysis of Twitter
Melody Huang, et al. Contraception and Reproductive Medicine, February 2024.The study: The authors explore how contraceptive information is shared on X and understand how those posts affect women’s decisions. They analyze a random 1% of publicly available English-language tweets about reversible prescription contraceptive methods, from January 2014 and December 2019. The 4,434 analyzed tweets included at least 200 tweets per birth control method — IUDs, implants, the pill, patch and ring.
The findings: 26.7% of tweets about contraceptive methods discussed decision-making and 20.5% discussed side effects, especially the side effects of IUDs and the depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA or Depo-Provera) shot. Discussions about the pill, patch or ring prompted more discussions on logistics and adherence. About 6% of tweets explicitly requested information. Tweets about IUDs were most popular in terms of likes.
More importantly, 50.6% of the tweets were posted by contraceptive users, while only 6% came from official health or news sources. Tweets from news or journalistic sources were more frequent than tweets from a health care professional or organization.
Some tweets contained misinformation represented as facts, such as the unsubstantiated claim that IUDs can cause fertility issues. Others were outwardly misogynistic, shaming women and claiming that they wouldn’t be able to have kids because of using hormonal birth control.
One takeaway: “While Twitter may provide valuable insight, with more tweets being created by personal contraceptive users than official healthcare sources, the available information may vary in reliability. Asking patients about information from social media can help reaffirm to patients the importance of social networks in contraceptive decision-making while also addressing misconceptions to improve contraceptive counseling,” the authors write.
What Do Social Media Influencers Say About Birth Control? A Content Analysis of YouTube Vlogs About Birth Control
Emily J. Pfender and M. Marie Devlin. Health Communication, January 2023.The study: To explore what social media influencers shared on YouTube about their experiences with hormonal and non-hormonal methods of birth control, the researchers analyzed 50 vlogs posted between December 2019 and December 2021. Most of the 50 influencers were categorized on YouTube as Lifestyle (72%) and Fitness (16%). They had between 20,000 and 2.2 million subscribers each.
The findings: In total, 74% of the influencers talked about discontinuing hormonal birth control. About 44% said the main reason they were discontinuing birth control was to be more natural, while 32% said they wanted to improve their mental health and 20% were concerned about weight gain.
Forty percent of influencers mentioned using non-hormonal birth control methods such as menstrual cycle tracking, condoms, non-hormonal IUDs and the pull-out method. Twenty percent reported switching from hormonal to non-hormonal methods.
One takeaway: “Our content analysis revealed that discontinuation of hormonal birth control is commonly discussed among [social media influencers] on YouTube and sexual health information from influencers might not provide accurate educational information and tools… this is especially concerning given that social media is young adults’ primary tool for sexual health information. Future research is needed to understand the effects of SMI birth control content on sexual health behaviors,” the authors write.
Hormonal Contraceptive Side Effects and Nonhormonal Alternatives on TikTok: A Content Analysis
Emily J. Pfender, Kate Tsiandoulas, Stephanie R. Morain and Leah R. Fowler. Health Promotion Practice, January 2024.The study: The authors analyzed the content of 100 TikTok videos that used the hashtags #birthcontrolsideeffects and #nonhormonalcontraception. Their goal was to understand the types of content about side effects of hormonal and non-hormonal contraceptives on TikTok.
The findings: The videos averaged about 1 minute and garnered an average of 27,795 likes, 251 comments and 623 shares. For #birthcontrolsideeffects, 80% of the audience was 18 to 24 years old and videos with that hashtag had 43 million views worldwide as of July 7, 2023.
Thirty-two percent of the videos were by regular users (non-influencers), 26 by clinicians, 13% by health coaches and 2% by companies. Only 3% had a sponsorship disclosure and 6% included a medical disclaimer, that the person was not a doctor or was not providing medical advice.
Most of the 100 videos (71%) mentioned hormonal contraception. Among them 51% discussed unspecific hormonal contraceptives, 31% talked about the pill and 11% about hormonal IUDs. Four of the 71 creators explicitly recommended against using hormonal contraceptives.
Claims about hormonal contraceptives were mostly based on personal experience. About 25% of the creators cited no basis for their claims, 23% included outside evidence, including unspecified studies or information from the FDA insert, and 11% used a combination of personal and outside evidence.
Almost half (49%) mentioned discontinuing their hormonal contraception, with negative side effects cited as the most common reason.
The creators talked about mental health issues, weight gain, headaches, and less common risks of various cancers or chronic illness, change in personality and blood clots. They were less likely to mention the positive aspects of birth control.
About 52% of videos mentioned non-hormonal contraception, including copper IUDs and cycle tracking.
Nine of the 100 creators expressed feeling dismissed, pressured, gaslit or insufficiently informed about contraception by medical providers.
One takeaway: “Our findings support earlier work suggesting social media may fuel ‘hormonophobia,’ or negative framing and scaremongering about hormonal contraception and that this phobia is largely driven by claims of personal experience rather than scientific evidence,” the authors write. “Within these hashtag categories, TikTok creators frame their provider interactions negatively. Many indicate feeling ignored or upset after medical appointments, not sufficiently informed about contraceptive options, and pressured to use hormonal contraceptives. This finding aligns with previous social media research and among the general population, suggesting opportunities for improvements in contraceptive counseling.”
Popular Contraception Videos on TikTok: An Assessment of Content Topics
Rachel E. Stoddard, et al. Contraception, January 2024.The study: Researchers analyzed 700 English-language TikTok videos related to hormonal contraception, with a total of 1.2 billion views and 1.5 million comments, posted between October 2019 and December 2021. Their aim was to explore the types of contraception content on TikTok and to understand how the platform influences the information patients take into birth control counseling visits.
The findings: More than half of the videos (52%) were about patient experiences and how to use contraceptives. Other common topics included side effects (35%) and pregnancy (39%).
Only 19% of the videos were created by health care professionals, including midwives, physician assistants and medical doctors, although those videos garnered 41% of the total views, indicating higher engagement. While 93% of health care providers shared educational content, 23% of non-health care providers shared educational content.
One takeaway: “Our findings show an exceptional opportunity for education around contraception for young reproductive-aged individuals, given the accessibility and popularity of these videos. This may also extend to other topics around sex education and family planning, including sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment and procuring abortion care,” the authors write.
TikTok, #IUD, and User Experience With Intrauterine Devices Reported on Social Media
Jenny Wu, Esmé Trahair, Megan Happ and Jonas Swartz. Obstetrics & Gynecology, January 2023.The study: Researchers used a web-scraping application to collect the top 100 TikTok videos tagged #IUD on April 6, 2022, based on views, comments, likes and shares. Their aim was to understand the perspectives and experiences of people with IUDs shared on TikTok. The videos had a total of 471 million views, 32 million likes and 1 million shares. Their average length was 33 seconds.
The findings: Some 89% of the creators identified as female and nearly 90% were from the United States; 37% were health care professionals; and 78% were 21 years or older.
Video types included patients’ own experiences with IUD removal (32%), educational (30%) and humorous (25%). More videos (38%) had a negative tone compared with 19% with a positive tone. The videos that portrayed negative user experiences emphasized pain and distrust of health care professionals.
Half of the videos were very accurate, while nearly a quarter were inaccurate (the authors did not use the term misinformation).
One takeaway: “The most liked #IUD videos on TikTok portray negative experiences related to pain and informed consent. Awareness of this content can help health care professionals shape education given the high prevalence of TikTok use among patients,” the authors write. “TikTok differs from other platforms because users primarily engage with an algorithmically curated feed individualized to the user’s interests and demographics.”
Types of female birth control
Most female hormonal contraceptives contain the synthetic version of natural female hormones estrogen and progesterone. They affect women’s hormone levels, preventing mature eggs from being released by the ovaries, a process that’s known as ovulation, hence, preventing a possible pregnancy.
Of the two hormones, progesterone (called progestin in synthetic form) is primarily responsible for preventing pregnancy. In addition to playing a role in preventing ovulation, progesterone inhibits sperm from penetrating through the cervix. Estrogen inhibits the development of follicles in the ovaries.
The information below is sourced from the CDC, the National Library of Medicine, the Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic.
Intrauterine contraception
Also called Long-Acting Reversible Contraception, or LARC, this method works by thickening the cervical mucus so the sperm can’t reach an egg. There are two types of IUDs: hormonal and non-hormonal.
- Levonorgestrel intrauterine system is a T-shaped device that’s placed inside the uterus by a doctor. It releases a small amount of progestin daily to prevent pregnancy. It can stay in place for 3 to 8 years. Its failure rate is 0.1% to 0.4%.
- Copper T intrauterine device is also T-shaped and is placed inside the uterus by a doctor. It does not contain hormones and can stay in place for up to 10 years. Its failure rate is 0.8%.
- Side effects: Copper IUDs may cause more painful and heavy periods, while progestin IUDs may cause irregular bleeding. In the very rare cases of pregnancy while having an IUD, there’s a greater chance of an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg grows outside of the uterus.
Hormonal methods
- The implant is a single, thin rod that’s inserted under the skin of the upper arm. It releases progestin over 3 years. Its failure rate is 0.1%, making it the most effective form of contraception available.
- Side effects: The most common side effect of an implant is irregular bleeding.
- The injection Depo-Provera or “shot” or “Depo” delivers progestin in the buttocks or arms every three months at the doctor’s office. Its failure rate is 4%.
- Side effects: The shot may cause irregular bleeding. The shot is also the only contraceptive that may cause weight gain. It may also be more difficult to predict when fertility returns once the shot is stopped.
- Combined oral contraceptives or “the pill” contain estrogen and progestin. They’re prescribed by a doctor. The pill has to be taken at the same time daily. The pill is not recommended for people who are older than 35 and smoke, have a history of blood clots or breast cancer. Its failure rate is 7%. Among women aged 15 to 44 who use contraception, about 25% use the pill.
- The skin patch is worn on the lower abdomen, buttocks or upper body, releasing progestin and estrogen. It is prescribed by a doctor. A new patch is used once a week for three weeks. No patch is worn for the fourth week. Its failure rate is 7%.
- Hormonal vaginal contraceptive ring releases progestin and estrogen. It’s placed inside the vagina. It is worn for three weeks and taken out on the fourth week. Its typical failure rate is 7%.
- Side effects: Contraceptives with estrogen, including the pill, the patch and the ring, increase the risk of developing blood clots.
- Progestin-only pill or “mini-pill” only has progestin and is prescribed by a doctor. It has to be taken daily at the same time. It may be a good option for women who can’t take estrogen. Its typical failure rate is 7%.
- Opill is the first over-the-counter daily oral contraceptive in the U.S., approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2023. Opill only has progestin and like other birth control pills, it has to be taken at the same time every day. It should not be used by those who have or have had breast cancer. Its failure rate is 7%.
- Side effects: The most common side effect of progestin-only pills is irregular bleeding, although the bleeding tends to be light.
Non-hormonal birth control methods include using barriers such as a diaphragm or sponge, condoms and spermicides, withdrawal, and menstrual cycle tracking. Emergency contraception, including emergency contraception pills (the morning-after pill), is not a regular method of birth control.
Additional research studies to consider
Population Attitudes Toward Contraceptive Methods Over Time on a Social Media Platform
Allison A. Merz, et al. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, December 2020.Social Media and the Intrauterine Device: A YouTube Content Analysis
Brian T. Nguyen and Allison J. Allen. BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health, November 2017.This article first appeared on The Journalist’s Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
