Cited by 323Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationHealth, Medicine and Society

Online professionalism and the mirror of social media.

Open access
Greysen, S. Ryan, Kind, Terry, Chretien, Katherine C.·2010·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

The rise of social media--content created by Internet users and hosted by popular sites such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Wikipedia, and blogs--has brought several new hazards for medical professionalism. First, many physicians may find applying principles for medical professionalism to the online environment challenging in certain contexts. Second, physicians may not consider the potential impact of their online content on their patients and the public. Third, a momentary lapse in judgment by an individual physician to create unprofessional content online can reflect poorly on the entire profession. To overcome these challenges, we encourage individual physicians to realize that as they "tread" through the World Wide Web, they leave behind a "footprint" that may have unintended negative consequences for them and for the profession at large. We also recommend that institutions take a proactive approach to engage users of social media in setting consensus-based standards for "online professionalism." Finally, given that professionalism encompasses more than the avoidance of negative behaviors, we conclude with examples of more positive applications for this technology. Much like a mirror, social media can reflect the best and worst aspects of the content placed before it for all to see.

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/s11606-010-1447-1

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?

  • Academic writing frequently warns that social media dangerously crosses traditional medical boundaries.

    “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 [17]

  • Patient privacy breaches can cause greater harm when they occur online than face-to-face because of social media's wide reach and the permanency of digital information.

    “Patient privacy breaches can cause much greater harm when occurring online than when face-to-face given the potential wide reach of social media and the permanency of digital information.36”
  • Professionals, including physicians, have had their professional character judged by how they represent themselves online, and physicians may be viewed in their professional role whenever they are in public, including on social media.

    “Professionals, not limited to physicians, have had their professional character judged on the basis of the way they represent themselves online; 36 to some extent, physicians will be viewed in their professional role whenever they are in public, including when using social media.37”

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. Guseh JS 2nd, Brendel RW, Brendel DH. Medical professionalism in the age of social media. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(9):584-6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Greysen, S. R., Kind, T., & Chretien, K. C.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Children's National (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
Corresponding author
Greysen, S. Ryan
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2010-07-15
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
1227-1229
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2163962302
Cited by
323
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 26
FWCI
26.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
medical professionalism, social media, online professionalism, professional conduct, physician-patient relationship, professional reputation
MeSH terms
Humans, Online Systems, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Social Behavior, 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