Lemieux Mackenzie, Zhou Cyrus, Cary Caroline, Kelly Jeannie
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St Louis, MO, United States.
JMIR Infodemiology. 2024 Dec 16;4:e64577. doi: 10.2196/64577.
After the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, confusion followed regarding the legality of abortion in different states across the country. Recent studies found increased Google searches for abortion-related terms in restricted states after the Dobbsv. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision was leaked. As patients and providers use Wikipedia (Wikimedia Foundation) as a predominant medical information source, we hypothesized that changes in reproductive health information-seeking behavior could be better understood by examining Wikipedia article traffic.
This study aimed to examine trends in Wikipedia usage for abortion and contraception information before and after the Dobbs decision.
Page views of abortion- and contraception-related Wikipedia pages were scraped. Temporal changes in page views before and after the Dobbs decision were then analyzed to explore changes in baseline views, differences in views for abortion-related information in states with restrictive abortion laws versus nonrestrictive states, and viewer trends on contraception-related pages.
Wikipedia articles related to abortion topics had significantly increased page views following the leaked and final Dobbs decision. There was a 103-fold increase in the page views for the Wikipedia article Roe v. Wade following the Dobbs decision leak (mean 372,654, SD 135,478 vs mean 3614, SD 248; P<.001) and a 67-fold increase in page views following the release of the final Dobbs decision (mean 8942, SD 402 vs mean 595,871, SD 178,649; P<.001). Articles about abortion in the most restrictive states had a greater increase in page views (mean 40.6, SD 12.7; 18/51, 35% states) than articles about abortion in states with some restrictions or protections (mean 26.8, SD 7.3; 24/51, 47% states; P<.001) and in the most protective states (mean 20.6, SD 5.7; 8/51, 16% states; P<.001). Finally, views to pages about common contraceptive methods significantly increased after the Dobbs decision. "Vasectomy" page views increased by 183% (P<.001), "IUD" (intrauterine device) page views increased by 80% (P<.001), "Combined oral contraceptive pill" page views increased by 24% (P<.001), "Emergency Contraception" page views increased by 224% (P<.001), and "Tubal ligation" page views increased by 92% (P<.001).
People sought information on Wikipedia about abortion and contraception at increased rates after the Dobbs decision. Increased traffic to abortion-related Wikipedia articles correlated to the restrictiveness of state abortion policies. Increased interest in contraception-related pages reflects the increased demand for contraceptives observed after the Dobbs decision. Our work positions Wikipedia as an important source of reproductive health information and demands increased attention to maintain and improve Wikipedia as a reliable source of health information after the Dobbs decision.
美国最高法院推翻罗诉韦德案后，美国各州关于堕胎合法性的问题陷入混乱。近期研究发现，多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案的裁决泄露后，在堕胎受限的州，谷歌上与堕胎相关词汇的搜索量有所增加。由于患者和医疗服务提供者将维基百科（维基媒体基金会）作为主要的医学信息来源，我们推测通过研究维基百科文章的浏览量，可以更好地了解生殖健康信息寻求行为的变化。
本研究旨在调查多布斯案裁决前后维基百科上堕胎和避孕信息的使用趋势。
抓取维基百科上与堕胎和避孕相关页面的浏览量。然后分析多布斯案裁决前后浏览量的时间变化，以探究基线浏览量的变化、堕胎法律严格的州与非严格州在堕胎相关信息浏览量上的差异，以及避孕相关页面的浏览者趋势。
多布斯案裁决泄露及最终裁决后，维基百科上与堕胎主题相关的文章浏览量显著增加。多布斯案裁决泄露后，维基百科文章《罗诉韦德案》的浏览量增长了103倍（平均372,654次，标准差135,478次，对比平均3614次，标准差248次；P<.001），最终裁决发布后浏览量增长了67倍（平均8942次，标准差402次，对比平均595,871次，标准差178,649次；P<.001）。堕胎法律最严格的州的堕胎相关文章浏览量增长幅度（平均40.6次，标准差12.7次；18/51，35%的州）大于有一定限制或保护措施的州（平均26.8次，标准差7.3次；24/51，47%的州；P<.001）以及保护措施最完善的州（平均20.6次，标准差5.7次；8/51，16%的州；P<.001）。最后，多布斯案裁决后，常见避孕方法相关页面的浏览量显著增加。“输精管切除术”页面浏览量增加了183%（P<.001），“宫内节育器”页面浏览量增加了80%（P<.001），“复方口服避孕药”页面浏览量增加了24%（P<.001），“紧急避孕”页面浏览量增加了224%（P<.001），“输卵管结扎”页面浏览量增加了92%（P<.001）。
多布斯案裁决后，人们在维基百科上搜索堕胎和避孕信息的频率增加。与堕胎相关的维基百科文章浏览量的增加与各州堕胎政策的严格程度相关。对避孕相关页面兴趣的增加反映了多布斯案裁决后对避孕药具需求的增加。我们的研究表明维基百科是生殖健康信息的重要来源，并且在多布斯案裁决后，需要更多关注以维护和改善维基百科作为可靠健康信息来源的地位。
