The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Content of Weblogs Written by Health Professionals
Open accessAbstract
Background Medical weblogs ("blogs") have emerged as a new connection between health professionals and the public.Objective To examine the scope and content of medical blogs and approximate how often blog authors commented about patients, violated patient privacy, or displayed a lack of professionalism.Design We defined medical blogs as those that contain some medical content and were apparently written by physicians or nurses. We used the Google search term "medical blog" to begin a modified snowball sampling method to identify sites posting entries from 1/1/06 through 12/14/06. We reviewed five entries per blog, categorizing content and characteristics.Results We identified 271 medical blogs. Over half (56.8%) of blog authors provided sufficient information in text or image to reveal their identities. Individual patients were described in 114 (42.1%) blogs. Patients were portrayed positively in 43 blogs (15.9%) and negatively in 48 blogs (17.7%). Of blogs that described interactions with individual patients, 45 (16.6%) included sufficient information for patients to identify their doctors or themselves. Three blogs showed recognizable photographic images of patients. Healthcare products were promoted, either by images or descriptions, in 31 (11.4%) blogs.Conclusions Blogs are a growing part of the public face of the health professions. They offer physicians and nurses the opportunity to share their narratives. They also risk revealing confidential information or, in their tone or content, risk reflecting poorly on the blog authors and their professions. The health professions should assume some responsibility for helping authors and readers negotiate these challenges.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“the academic literature replete with admonishments of how SM are dangerously breeching the old “boundary markers” of medicine: enabling all manner of distasteful content to be publically posted by medical students, residents, and other healthcare providers,7,14–17”
From Dangers and Opportunities for Social Media in Medicine (2013) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“In one 2008 study which analyzed the content of 271 weblogs written by health professionals, researchers found that weblogs offered the opportunity to share narratives, but also risked revealing confidential patient information or reflecting poorly on the author or profession [21].”
From Social media use by physicians: a qualitative study of the new frontier of medicine (2016) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“A study of 271 medical blogs written by health professionals found that individual patients were described in 42% of blogs.”
From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [43]
In the citing paper
“Of these, 17% included sufficient information for patients to identify their providers or themselves, and 3 included recognizable photographic patient images.43”
From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [43]
In the citing paper
“When researchers analyzed the content of blogs written by health professionals, 11% contained product endorsement of specific healthcare products; none provided conflict of interest disclosures.43”
From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [43]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I. D. C., & Wheeler, S. (2006) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-6-41 · Cited by 1,154
Sampling hard to reach populations
Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1997) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.00371.x · Cited by 1,050
Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter
(2002) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02082-3 · Cited by 1,021
(2002) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410603029 · Cited by 728
Medical Professionalism in Society
Wynia, M. K., Latham, S. R., Kao, A. C., Berg, J. W., & Emanuel, L. L. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199911183412112 · Cited by 331
Confidentiality in Medicine — A Decrepit Concept
Siegler, M. A. (1982) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198212093072411 · Cited by 266
Elevator talk: Observational study of inappropriate comments in a public space
Ubel, P. A., Zell, M. M., Miller, D. J., Fischer, G. S., Peters-Stefani, D., & Arnold, R. M. (1995) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(99)80139-9 · Cited by 84
Health and health care among housestaff in four U.S. internal medicine residency programs
Rosen, I. M., Christie, J. D., Bellini, L. M., & Asch, D. A. (2000) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.11218.x · Cited by 74
Self-citationAssessment of a blog as a medium for dermatology education
Poonawalla, T., & Wagner, R. F. (2006) · Dermatology Online Journal · doi:10.5070/d32kr8m9bc · Cited by 40
Thielst, C. B. (2007) · Journal of Healthcare Management · doi:10.1097/00115514-200709000-00003 · Cited by 34
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Moorhead, S. A., Hazlett, D. E., Harrison, L., Carroll, J. K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1933 · Cited by 2,517
Snowball Sampling: A Purposeful Method of Sampling in Qualitative Research
Naderifar, M., Goli, H., & Ghaljaei, F. (2017) · Strides in development of medical education · doi:10.5812/sdme.67670 · Cited by 3,013
Dissemination of health information through social networks: Twitter and antibiotics
Scanfeld, D., Scanfeld, V., & Larson, E. (2010) · American Journal of Infection Control · doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2009.11.004 · Cited by 699
Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students
Chretien, K. C. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1387 · Cited by 448
Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications
Chretien, K. C., & Kind, T. (2013) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.112.128017 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Lagu, T., Kaufman, E. J., Asch, D. A., & Armstrong, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lagu, Tara
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2008-07-23
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1642-1646
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC2533366
- OpenAlex
- W2008593118
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 16.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Terminology › Medical Research and Practices
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Keywords
- medical blogs, patient privacy, confidentiality, professionalism, online health communication
- MeSH terms
- Confidentiality, Ethics, Nursing, Female, Health Occupations, Humans, Male, Nurses, Physicians, Writing, 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
