RESUMO
This paper aimed to examine the quality of obstetric and gynecological advice provided to women in a sample of women's magazines, and determine whether the inclusion of expert sources affected the quality of advice. A retrospective content analysis of popular Canadian magazines from January 2019 to 2020 was conducted. An adaptation of the Media Doctor Australia rating tool was used to assess the quality of reporting. Criteria included source, evidence base, benefits presented meaningfully, potential harms mentioned, no evidence of fear-based rhetoric, availability, and cost. Seventy-seven claims were rated, exhibiting a wide variation in quality, evidence base, and inclusion of expert sources. Approximately 55 of 77 health claims cited a medical professional source. A majority of health claims (71%, 54/77) were supported by robust evidence or generally in line with recommendations. The quality of the claims was low and varied widely across magazines. There was no significant association between expert sources and health claim quality. The prevalence of expert sources does not impact the quality of each article, though may increase the reader's confidence in the claim. The overall prevalence of low quality or incomplete information found in this study suggests that women may not be receiving adequate health information from magazine content.