Can pregnant mothers trust online nutrition advice?

By Dr. Liji Thomas, MDReviewed by Lauren HardakerJun 5 2025

Research reveals that online nutrition tips for pregnant women are often outdated, unverified, and lacking transparency, potentially putting mothers and their babies at risk.

Study: Quality Assessment of Web-Based Information Related to Diet During Pregnancy in Pregnant Women: Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study. Image credit: Makistock/Shutterstock.com

Online health information is abundantly available and accessible in almost every region and locality. Pregnant women lean on it for information, including on their diet. A recent study in the journal JMIR Formative Research examined the quality of this information, filling a known research gap.

Introduction

During pregnancy, women are often more mindful of their eating habits because they are concerned about the baby’s growth and development. This may cause them to look online for health-related information. However, the top search results are often factually incorrect. Pregnant women may not know how to verify key information for accuracy or assess the strength of evidence, which prevents them from making informed dietary decisions. This could impact the health of both mother and baby and may add to the stress of pregnancy.

In Japan, 83% of people use the internet, primarily smartphones and computers, reflecting the worldwide trend. In Canada, 96% of pregnant women resort to it to get answers to their questions about nutrition during pregnancy.

This could help women inform their eating habits, and it is particularly beneficial for first-time mothers or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Such individuals are typically less likely to get professional nutritional advice. However, other expectant mothers have experienced confusion and anxiety because of conflicting information or because they found they had eaten something they should not.

Online dietary information should be accurate and relevant to the user's needs. Of 18 Australian websites investigated, none fully conformed to evidence-based guidelines. Interestingly, no studies have addressed this question regarding Japanese websites.

Digital resources and content are used in many ways during pregnancy. The study describes a “conceptual model for engagement” to understand how pregnant women interact online with health information, including cognitive, behavioral, collaborative, emotional, and social engagement.

The current study used Google keywords to collate online information about diet in pregnancy and evaluated the quality of the top 20 contributing websites using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST).

Study findings

The mean QUEST score was 11.7 points (ranging from 6 to 15).

Half the websites did not name the author. Except for one, no paper provided scientific references for its information. While 13 sites did not offer study references for the expert opinions or documents they claimed to base their content on, six sites provided no sources. These findings suggest a lack of scientific reliability.

The highest quality score was for conflict of interest. Whilst 60% of sites were unbiased, five recommended specific steps, and three recommended services or educational products with some biases.

Only half of the sites had publication date information, indicating that the content had been written within the past five years. Most of the others did not show the date of writing, suggesting a loss of transparency.

The lowest quality score was for complementarity, where 70% of websites did not have a supportive attitude towards the patient-physician relationship.  

While 95% supported their claims, only one site presented a balanced and cautious tone, acknowledging limitations or discussing contrasting evidence, as required for a high QUEST score. The rest failed to highlight such limitations. In most cases, the website information was noncommittal but failed to reveal the limitations of its claims. Conflicting information was also not shown, making the information low-quality.

Several sites provided nutritional information that significantly diverged from current guidelines. This included non-evidence-backed claims about drinking, weight loss, and miscarriage, suggesting the information was unreliable and/or prejudiced.  

For instance, some websites recommend reducing alcohol consumption during pregnancy, which contradicts international guidelines that advise complete abstinence. Japanese guidelines advise setting weight gain goals based on pre-pregnancy weight, but some websites recommend gaining about 11 kg. This generic approach does not reflect official standards. No evidence supports either of these statements.

Those most affected by outdated or unscientific online information about diet during pregnancy are likely to be less educated pregnant women or those with a lower annual income. The study notes that women with lower health literacy may lack the skills to evaluate the quality of information and are particularly at risk of being misled by inaccurate online advice. These women may not be aware of their health and thus seek information online, only to fall victim to misleading websites.

It is emphasized that, while online resources are convenient, direct counseling from healthcare professionals, such as midwives and dietitians, remains the most reliable source of nutrition guidance during pregnancy.

Conclusions

Online information is often inaccurate and unsupported by evidence. Other problems include the lack of ascribed authorship, potential conflicts of interest, and outdated information.

“Since internet-based information is the most accessible, reliable evidence should be provided to protect everyone from misinformation, including shallow health literacy demographics, and potential physical and psychological harm.” This suggests that health officials and policymakers should establish more rigorous standards for online information sources.

The study also highlights that search engine algorithms may introduce bias, as even searches conducted in incognito mode can be influenced by factors such as IP address, device fingerprinting, and market trends. This means that search engine results may not always reflect the most neutral or reliable sources of information.

The use of QUEST for pregnancy nutrition information could be limited by its ability to identify the user, thus failing to reflect diverse content. The Google algorithm provides the most market-friendly or generally accepted viewpoints. Future studies may obtain more neutral results by using VPNs, adjusting search terms, removing identifying details from the platform, or using multiple search engines.

The study also notes that the QUEST tool, though validated, may not fully capture all aspects of quality or diversity in online health information.

Download your PDF copy now!