Crenças em odontíase e colares de âmbar: uma análise de conteúdo das perspectivas dos usuários em comentários do Facebook

Jorge, Olívia Santana; Leite, Jean Ribeiro; Almeida, Douglas William de; Lotto, Matheus; Cruvinel, Thiago

doi:10.1590/1413-81232026316.07612024

person Olívia Santana Jorge

review and editing · writing · formal analysis · investigation · data curation · Conceptualization · methodology · resources

schoolDepartamento de Odontopediatria, Ortodontia e Saúde Coletiva, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de São Paulo. Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, Quadra 9, Jardim Brasil. 17012-901 Bauru SP Brasil. olivia.jorge@usp.br

0000-0002-5266-5798

person Jean Ribeiro Leite

review and editing · investigation · data curation

schoolDepartamento de Odontopediatria, Ortodontia e Saúde Coletiva, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de São Paulo. Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, Quadra 9, Jardim Brasil. 17012-901 Bauru SP Brasil. olivia.jorge@usp.br

0000-0003-0122-7146

person Douglas William de Almeida

review and editing · data curation

schoolDepartamento de Odontopediatria, Ortodontia e Saúde Coletiva, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de São Paulo. Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, Quadra 9, Jardim Brasil. 17012-901 Bauru SP Brasil. olivia.jorge@usp.br

0009-0002-5572-4180

person Matheus Lotto

review and editing · formal analysis

schoolDepartamento de Odontopediatria, Ortodontia e Saúde Coletiva, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de São Paulo. Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, Quadra 9, Jardim Brasil. 17012-901 Bauru SP Brasil. olivia.jorge@usp.br

0000-0002-0121-4006

person Thiago Cruvinel

supervision · review and editing · formal analysis · Conceptualization · methodology · resources

schoolDepartamento de Odontopediatria, Ortodontia e Saúde Coletiva, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de São Paulo. Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, Quadra 9, Jardim Brasil. 17012-901 Bauru SP Brasil. olivia.jorge@usp.br

0000-0001-7095-908X

Chief editors:

Maria Cecília de Souza Minayo, Romeu Gomes, Antônio Augusto Moura da Silva, Vania de Matos Fonseca

Codes	Examples of comments
Psychosocial factors
A. Self-efficacy (sense of competence to seek, obtain and use health information)
A1. Competence perceived by the receiver	“I was able to find what I needed, I always manage to find what I want, I said I would find a solution to the issue, it was easy to find this, it seems easy to use this...”
A2. Incompetence perceived by the receiver	“I don’t understand any of this, I need help to understand this, I never find what I need, it’s so difficult to find a solution to my problem, I don’t know how to resolve this anymore...”
A3. Additional receiver’s asks related to the amber necklace	"Where can I find more information about this? What is this used for? How do you use this? They say this is good, is it true?”
B. Risk perception of teething (perceived susceptibility and severity of teething, prompting the need for intervention in its management, such as the acquisition or intention to acquire amber teething necklaces)
B1. Perceived severity by the receiver	“This is more serious than I thought, it’s very severe, my child seems like he’s going to die...”
B2. Severity not perceived by the receiver	“This isn’t a serious issue, it’s not severe, my child doesn’t feel any of it...”
B3. Receiver’s need to take action	“I have to do something about this, I can’t stand this situation anymore.”
B4. Lack of receiver’s need to take action	“There’s no need to do anything, just wait.”
B5. Acquisition or intention to acquire the necklace	“I just bought one for my daughter, where can I buy one? How much does it cost? It’s beautiful, I want one...”
B6. Lack of intention to acquire the necklace	“I will never buy this, I won’t waste money on it, anyone who buys this is throwing money away.”
C. Concern/anxiety about teething symptoms (expresses concern/anxiety about teething symptoms)
C1. Physical discomfort	“I’m worried/anxious about my child’s discomfort (pain), I fear that he’s suffering a lot...”
C2. Crying	“My daughter is screaming so much, I’ve never seen so much crying, is it normal to cry this much?”
C3. Fever	“I’m worried/anxious because my daughter has a fever, is it normal to have a fever with the teething...?”
C4. Diarrhea	“My daughter has diarrhea every day because of her teeth. I’m very afraid of a more significant problem...”
C5. Drooling	“My son doesn’t stop drooling for a second, he drools a lot!”
C6. Putting hands or objects in the mouth	“Is it normal for a child to have their hand in their mouth all the time while teething? My son puts everything in his mouth, thanks to those teeth!”
C7. Other perceived conditions	“My son has lots of white spots on the roof of his mouth, what could that be?”
D. Concern/anxiety about the use of amber necklace (expresses concern/anxiety about the use of amber teething necklaces)
D1. Danger alert	“I’m afraid this necklace might cause an accident, what if my child gets strangled by it...?”
D2. Fear of accidents	“Warning! Don’t buy or use this necklace! It can be very dangerous...”
D3. Dentist contraindication	“Dentists don’t recommend using this necklace. I talked to my daughter’s dentist, and she told me not to buy or use it.”
Instrumental Factors
E. Quality of information (classification of post quality by the receiver)
E1. The information is of high quality	“Excellent post! Congratulations on the content! Very informative!”
E2. The information is of low quality	“Bad post! Not great, huh? Terrible!”
E3. The information is of questionable quality	“I’m somewhat skeptical about this, I’ll believe it when I see it...”
F. Social media reliability (classification of the reliability of Facebook in providing health information by the receiver)
F1. Facebook is reliable for information about amber necklace	“Everything I find on Facebook is great, Facebook is fantastic!”
F2. Facebook is not reliable for information about amber necklace	“Nothing on Facebook is worth it! What a shame, Facebook!”
G. Information utility (evaluation of content usefulness by the receiver)
G1. The information is useful or potentially useful	“This information was very helpful, look how great it is, @maria!”
G2. The information is useless	“Useless post! Why is this, my God! Is there nothing better to do than write nonsense?”
H. Teething experience (classification of the receiver’s level of experience regarding teething)
H1. Current experience with the condition	“I’m going through this right now, only God! Only God can help me; it’s tough!”
H2. Past experience with the condition	“Thank goodness I’ve been through this already! Thank God it’s over!”
H3. No experience with the condition	“I’ve never been through this, but it must be tough. I can empathize even without knowing what it’s like...”
I. Amber necklace experience (classification of the type of real or expected experience with the amber teething necklace)
I1. Neutral experience/knowledge about the amber necklace	“It is very common in Europe, amber is a natural resin from the Baltic Sea, succinic acid is released upon contact with the skin…”
I2. Positive experience from using the amber necklace	“I used it on my daughter, and it was wonderful! I recommend it! Besides being beautiful, it works...”
I3. Negative experience from using the amber necklace	“I used it, and it didn’t do anything, it was the same as water...”
I4. Positive expectation about using the amber necklace	“I received one of these from my mom, and I think it’ll be great for relieving my child’s pain...”
I5. Negative expectation about using the amber necklace	“I got a necklace like this at the baby shower, but I don’t really believe it will work. I’ll believe it when I see it...”

Sociodemographics	Comments (n = 1,000, 100%)
Gender
Female	963 (96.3%)
Male	15 (1.5%)
Undefined	22 (2.2%)
Race
White	818 (81.8%)
Non-white	148 (14.8%)
Undefined	34 (3.4%)
Location
Brazil	978 (97.8%)
Portugal	2 (18.6%)
Australia	1 (0.1%)
Malta	1 (0.1%)
USA	1 (0.1%)
Undefined	17 (1.7%)

	Time since comment publication			All comments
	> 1,927 days	≤ 1,927 days	Undefined
Psychosocial Factors
A. Self-efficacy	94 (6.9%)	80 (10.3%)	2 (4.6%)	176 (8.2%)
1. Competence perceived by the receiver	3 (0.2%)	3 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	6 (0.3%)
2. Incompetence perceived by the receiver	15 (1.1%)	14 (1.8%)	1 (2.3%)	30 (1.4%)
3. Receiver’s doubts related to the information	76 (5.6%)	63 (8.1%)	1 (2.3%)	140 (6.5%)
B. Risk perception of teething	180 (13.4%)	195 (25.0%)	6 (13.6%)	381 (17.6%)
1. Perceived severity by the receiver	66 (4.9%)	1 (0.1%)	3 (6.8%)	70 (3.2%)
2. Severity not perceived by the receiver	21 (1.6%)	1 (0.1%)	0 (0%)	22 (1.0%)
3. Receiver’s need to take action	2 (0.1%)	4 (0.5%)	2 (4.5%)	8 (0.4%)
4. Lack of receiver’s need to take action	7 (0.5%)	5 (0.6%)	0 (0%)	12 (0.6%)
5. Acquisition or intention to acquire the necklace	79 (5.9%)	183 (23.6%)	1 (2.3%)	263 (12.1%)
6. Lack of intention to acquire the necklace	5 (0.4%)	1 (0.1%)	0 (0%)	6 (0.3%)
C. Concern/anxiety about teething symptoms	76 (5.8%)	16 (2.0%)	8 (18.2%)	100 (4.5%)
1. Physical discomfort	20 (1.5%)	9 (1.2%)	2 (4.5%)	31 (1.4%)
2. Crying	15 (1.1%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	15 (0.7%)
3. Fever	13 (1.0%)	1 (0.1%)	0 (0%)	14 (0.6%)
4. Diarrhea	1 (0.1%)	1 (0.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (0.1%)
5. Drooling	5 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	5 (0.2%)
6. Putting hands or objects in the mouth	1 (0.1%)	0 (0%)	1 (2.3%)	2 (0.1%)
7. Other perceived conditions	21 (1.6%)	5 (0.6%)	5 (11.4%)	31 (1.4%)
D. Concern/anxiety about the use of amber necklace	100 (7.4%)	40 (5.2%)	6 (13.6%)	146 (6.8%)
1. Safety warnings	46 (3.4%)	8 (1.0%)	0 (0%)	54 (2.5%)
2. Fear of accidents	32 (2.4%)	20 (2.6%)	6 (13.6%)	58 (2.7%)
3. Dentist contraindication	22 (1.6%)	12 (1.6%)	0 (0%)	34 (1.6%)
Instrumental factors
E. Quality of information	83 (6.2%)	72 (9.4%)	3 (6.8%)	158 (7.3%)
1. Perception of high-quality information	51 (3.8%)	43 (5.6%)	3 (6.8%)	97 (4.5%)
2. Perception of low-quality information	4 (0.3%)	3 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	7 (0.3%)
3. Perception of questionable-quality information	28 (2.1%)	26 (3.4%)	0 (0%)	54 (2.5%)
F. Social media reliability	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (%)	0 (0%)
1. Facebook is reliable for information about amber necklace	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
2. Facebook is not reliable for information about amber necklace	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
G. Information utility	217 (16.1%)	197 (25.4%)	6 (13.6%)	420 (19.4%)
1. The information is useful or potentially useful	211 (15.7%)	190 (24.5%)	6 (13.6%)	407 (18.8%)
2. The information is useless	6 (0.4%)	7 (0.9%)	0 (0%)	13 (0.6%)
H. Teething experience	163 (12.0%)	23 (3.1%)	5 (11.4%)	191 (8.8%)
1. Current experience with teething	80 (5.9%)	2 (0.3%)	4 (9.1%)	86 (4.0%)
2. Past experience with teething	65 (4.8%)	19 (2.5%)	1 (2.3%)	85 (3.9%)
3. No experience with teething	18 (1.3%)	2 (0.3%)	0 (0%)	20 (0.9%)
I. Amber necklace experience	435 (32.3%)	151 (19.6%)	8 (18.1%)	594 (27.4%)
1. Neutral experience/knowledge about the amber necklace	191 (14.2%)	51 (6.6%)	2 (4.5%)	244 (11.3%)
2. Positive experience from using the amber necklace	220 (16.3%)	82 (10.6%)	6 (13.6%)	308 (14.2%)
3. Negative experience from using the amber necklace	17 (1.3%)	12 (1.6%)	0 (0%)	29 (1.3%)
4. Positive expectation about using the amber necklace	7 (0.5%)	6 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	13 (0.6%)
5. Negative expectation about using the amber necklace	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Total	1,348 (100%)	774 (100%)	44 (100%)	2,166 (100%)

[TFN1] Source: Authors.