SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE TIME OF COVID-19: AN EVALUATION OF SOCIETY FOR ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY (SART) MEMBER CLINICS

Objective: To evaluate the available COVID-19 content in regard to fertility care on the social media (SM) platforms from Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member clinics Design: Cross-sectional study Materials and Methods: From March 17-30/2020, following the release of the first American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) COVID-19 recommendations, SART member clinics’ SM platforms including Facebook and Twitter were examined The presence of information on COVID-19, its pregnancy implications, acknowledgement of and compliance with ASRM recommendations, mention of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) risk mitigation strategies and local health department guidelines, as well as advertisement for telehealth and availability of mental health resources were queried Websites were categorized by practice size (<500 vs ≥500 cycles/year), type (academic vs private) and degree of statewide COVID-19 burden based on CDC surveillance data (low: 0-1000;high: ≥1000 diagnosed cases) Group differences were evaluated using χ2 Results: SM accounts were available from 84% (315/375) of SART member clinics and were more common among private compared to academic clinics [96% (274/286) vs 46% (41/89), respectively, P<0 05] No difference was found in the presence of COVID-19 posts when comparing private and academic clinics [80% (220/274) vs 78% (32/41), respectively, P=0 68] Private clinics were more likely to post individualized recommendations rather than ASRM recommendations, and to advertise the use of telehealth [34% (93/274) vs 7% (3/41) and 64% (174/274) vs 46% (19/41), respectively, P<0 05, all values] There was no difference in the advertisement of mental health resources on SM [31% (86/274) vs 44% (18/41), respectively, P=0 15] Larger compared to smaller clinics were more likely to provide information on COVID-19, its pregnancy implications, and to acknowledge ASRM recommendations, CDC risk mitigation strategies and local health department guidelines on SM [86% (112/130) vs 76% (140/185);49% (64/130) vs 34% (62/185);49% (64/130) vs 34% (62/185);59% (77/130) vs 42% (77/185) and 33% (43/130) vs 22% (40/185), respectively, P<0 05, all values] Larger clinics were also more likely to advertise telehealth and mental health resources on SM [71% (92/130) vs 55% (101/185) and 42% (54/130) vs 27% (50/185), respectively, P<0 05, all values] Clinics in high COVID-19 burden states were less likely to follow ASRM recommendations compared to clinics in low burden states [36% (56/154) vs 50% (80/161), respectively, P<0 05] Conclusions: Use of SM accounts for dissemination of COVID-19 related information was common among SART member clinics with SM presence However, academic clinics were less likely to have any, and when they did, less likely to offer telehealth, possibly hindering care for their patients Conversely, larger clinics were more likely to provide pertinent information and advertise telehealth and mental health resources Private, smaller and high COVID-19 burden clinics were less likely to report compliance with ASRM recommendations