Cited by 425Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationImpact of Technology on Adolescents

The Intersection of Online Social Networking with Medical Professionalism

Open access
Thompson, Lindsay A., Dawson, Kara, Ferdig, Richard, Black, Erik W., Boyer, J., Coutts, Jade, Black, Nicole Paradise·2008·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Aim To measure the frequency and content of online social networking among medical students and residents.Methods Using the online network Facebook, we evaluated online profiles of all medical students (n = 501) and residents (n = 312) at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Objective measures included the existence of a profile, whether it was made private, and any personally identifiable information. Subjective outcomes included photographic content, affiliated social groups, and personal information not generally disclosed in a doctor-patient encounter.Results Social networking with Facebook is common among medical trainees, with 44.5% having an account. Medical students used it frequently (64.3%) and residents less frequently (12.8%, p < .0001). The majority of accounts (83.3%) listed at least 1 form of personally identifiable information, only a third (37.5%) were made private, and some accounts displayed potentially unprofessional material. There was a significant decline in utilization of Facebook as trainees approached medical or residency graduation (first year as referent, years 3 and 4, p < .05).Discussion While social networking in medical trainees is common in the current culture of emerging professionals, a majority of users allow anyone to view their profile. With a significant proportion having subjectively inappropriate content, ACGME competencies in professionalism must include instruction on the intersection of personal and professional identities.

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 · 10.1007/s11606-008-0538-8

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • There are still no agreements on what constitutes professional Internet behavior, except for the most horrific mistakes in professional unethical and illegal activities.

    “In addition, there are still no agreements on what constitutes professional Internet behavior, except for the most horrific mistakes in professional unethical and illegal activities [49].”

    From Social Media Role and Its Impact on Public Health: A Narrative Review (2023) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Introduction (page not specified) says professional accountability is difficult to define or measure and that Internet communication blurs the boundary between professional and personal life. That supports uncertainty about online professionalism, but the paper does not establish that there are no agreements on professional Internet behavior or that agreement exists only for egregious unethical or illegal acts. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Profile comments were modeled after actual status updates from previous studies to authentically portray workday comments.

    “Profile comments (ie, status updates) were modeled after actual status updates from previous studies of health professionals’ personal use of Facebook to authentically portray workday comments as they may be encountered online [18,20-22].”

    From Effects of Mock Facebook Workday Comments on Public Perception of Professional Credibility: A Field Study in Canada (2019) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Methods and Description of Facebook Users sections show that this is a previous study of medical trainees’ personal Facebook profiles. But the Methods describe collecting profile details and examining content, not collecting status updates or workday comments; the paper therefore does not establish that its material could have been used to model those comments. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The majority of learners in both groups (62.1% of students and 67.5% of residents) kept their Facebook accounts public because they did not change default privacy settings.

    “The majority of learners in both groups, 62.1% of students and 67.5% of residents, kept their Facebook accounts”

    From e-Professionalism: A New Frontier in Medical Education (2013) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Description of Facebook Users reports that 62.1% of students and 67.5% of residents with Facebook accounts kept them public. The Methods say users could designate accounts private or public, but the paper does not establish that the public accounts resulted from users leaving default privacy settings unchanged. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 70% of examined profiles had photographs depicting alcohol consumption, with 10-50% implying excess drinking.

    “Examination of the content revealed that 70% had photographs depicting alcohol consumption (10-50% implying excess drinking)”

    From e-Professionalism: A New Frontier in Medical Education (2013) · cites this paper as [14]

  • Three profiles contained unprofessional content including excessive drinking, overt sexuality, foul language, and patient privacy violations that occurred outside of the United States.

    “three profiles contained unprofessional content including excessive drinking, overt sexuality, foul language, and patient privacy violations that occurred outside of the United States.”

    From e-Professionalism: A New Frontier in Medical Education (2013) · cites this paper as [14]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [15]15. Huddle TS. Viewpoint: teaching professionalism: is medical morality a competency? Acad Med. 2005;80(10):885-91.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thompson, L. A., Dawson, K., Ferdig, R., Black, E. W., Boyer, J., Coutts, J., & Black, N. P.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Thompson, Lindsay A.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2008-07
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
954-957
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W1969882537
Cited by
425
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 42
FWCI
33.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Florida
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
online social networking, Facebook, medical professionalism, medical students, medical residents, privacy settings, personally identifiable information, physician confidentiality, ACGME core competencies, personal and professional identity
MeSH terms
Behavior, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Social Support, Students, Medical, Internet

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