Cited by 106Social Media in Health EducationEthics and bioethics in healthcareMedical and Health Sciences Research

Social media and physicians’ online identity crisis

Open access
DeCamp, Matthew, Koenig, Thomas W., Chisolm, Margaret S.·2013·JAMA

Abstract

Physicians are increasingly counted among Face-book’s 1 billion users and Twitter’s 500 million members. Beyond these social media platforms, other innovative social media tools are being used in medical practice, including for online consultation,(1) in the conduct of clinical research,(2) and in medical school curricula.(3) Social media content is brief, characterized as “many-to-many” communication, and able to spread rapidly across the Internet beyond a person’s control. These and other features of social media create new dimensions to traditional ethical issues, particularly around maintaining appropriate boundaries between physicians and patients.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2013.8238

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple studies have revealed instances of vulgar or derogatory language, breaches of patient confidentiality, and sharing of inappropriate content, which can lead to legal issues for medical students or medical doctors when using social media.

    “Further, multiple studies have revealed instances of vulgar or derogatory language, breaches of patient confidentiality, and sharing of inappropriate content, which can even lead to legal issues for medical students or medical doctors when using SM (19).”

    From Identifying social media professionalism competencies in Vietnamese medical students: a modified Delphi method (2026) · cites this paper as [19]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeCamp, M., Koenig, T. W., & Chisolm, M. S.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
JAMA
Published
2013-08-14
Volume
310
Issue
6
Pages
581
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2088189862
Cited by
106
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 4
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5t32hl007180-45)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32-HL-007180, 5T32HL007180-38)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
social media, physicians, online identity, physician-patient relationship, professional boundaries, medical ethics, teleconsultation, Facebook, Twitter
MeSH terms
Ethics, Professional, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Professional Competence, Professional Autonomy, Personal Autonomy, Consensus, Social Media

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review