The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 15 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Patient–Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey
Open accessAbstract
Background The use of online social networks (OSNs) among physicians and physicians-in-training, the extent of patient-doctor interactions within OSNs, and attitudes among these groups toward use of OSNs is not well described. Objective To quantify the use of OSNs, patient interactions within OSNs, and attitudes toward OSNs among medical students (MS), resident physicians (RP), and practicing physicians (PP) in the United States. Design/setting A random, stratified mail survey was sent to 1004 MS, 1004 RP, and 1004 PP between February and May 2010. Measurements Percentage of respondents reporting OSN use, the nature and frequency of use; percentage of respondents reporting friend requests by patients or patients' family members, frequency of these requests, and whether or not they were accepted; attitudes toward physician use of OSNs and online patient interactions. Results The overall response rate was 16.0% (19.8% MS, 14.3% RP, 14.1% PP). 93.5% of MS, 79.4% of RP, and 41.6% of PP reported usage of OSNs. PP were more likely to report having visited the profile of a patient or patient's family member (MS 2.3%, RP 3.9%, PP 15.5%), and were more likely to have received friend requests from patients or their family members (MS 1.2%, RP 7.8%, PP 34.5%). A majority did not think it ethically acceptable to interact with patients within OSNs for either social (68.3%) or patient-care (68.0%) reasons. Almost half of respondents (48.7%) were pessimistic about the potential for OSNs to…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
31 Own result · 9 Own method · 7 No full text of the sources · 7 Own interpretation · 4 Not checked yet · 1 Supported · 1 Sources not found · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and were more likely to have received friend requests from patients or their family members (MS 1.2%, RP 7.8%, PP 34.5%).”
- Also stated in: § Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks · plain
“Significantly more practicing physicians reported receiving friend requests from patients or family members then either resident physicians or medical students (MS 1.2%, RP 7.8%, PP 34.5%; p=0.007 for MS vs. RP, p< 0.001 for MS vs. PP and RP vs. PP).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A majority of all three groups reported using OSNs for personal use only (MS 95.9%, RP 97.0%, PP 95.0%), and very few respondents used OSNs for professional purposes (MS 4.1%, RP 3.0%, PP 10.1%).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Usage Patterns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups for any of the responses.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Attitudes Toward OSNs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Medical students were more likely to report usage of OSNs than resident or practicing physicians (MS 93.5%, RP 79.4%, PP 41.6%; p<0.001 for all pairwise comparisons).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Usage Patterns
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A larger proportion of PP reported being aware of a patient or patient's family member visiting their own personal OSN profile (MS 1.2%, RP 8.3%, PP 28.1%; p=0.006 for MS vs. RP, p<0.001 for MS vs. PP, p=0.002 for RP vs. PP).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PP were more likely to report having visited the profile of a patient or patient's family member (MS 2.3%, RP 3.9%, PP 15.5%)”
- Also stated in: § Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks · plain
“Specifically, they were more likely to have visited the profile of a patient or patient's family member within an OSN than either MS or RP (MS 2.3%, RP 3.9%, PP 15. 5%; p<0.001 for MS vs. PP, p=0.014 for RP vs. PP).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most respondents reported that their personal OSN privacy status was completely private (MS 63.2%, RP 68.4%, PP 48.1%).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Usage Patterns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patient-doctor interactions take place within OSNs, and are more typically initiated by patients than by physicians or physicians-in-training.”
- Also stated in: § Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks · plain
“Overall, patients were more likely to request friendship with physicians within OSNs than vice versa (patient-initiated request 9.0%, physician-initiated request 1.2%; p<0.001).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No respondents from any group reported that they always accepted friend requests.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Less than half of respondents reported that their personal OSN profile contained only information they would be willing to share with patients (MS 42.4%, RP 41.4%, PP 49.1%).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Usage Patterns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A majority did not think it ethically acceptable to interact with patients within OSNs for either social (68.3%) or patient-care (68.0%) reasons.”
- Also stated in: § Attitudes Toward OSNs · plain
“Additionally, a majority did not agree that it was ethically acceptable to interact with patients on OSNs, either for social (68.3%) or patient-care (68.0%) reasons.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Attitudes Toward OSNs · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Medical students were more likely than practicing physicians to be daily users of OSNs (MS 46.6%, RP 38.8%, PP 24.6%; p= 0.003 for MS vs. PP).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Usage Patterns
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and a majority (79%) expressed concerns about maintaining patient confidentiality.”
- Also stated in: § Attitudes Toward OSNs · plain
“A majority of respondents (79.0%) did not think that communication with patients within OSNs could be safely accomplished without compromising patient confidentiality.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Attitudes Toward OSNs · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Patient-doctor interactions take place within OSNs, and are more typically initiated by patients than by physicians or physicians-in-training.”
- Also stated in: § Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks · plain
“Overall, patients were more likely to request friendship with physicians within OSNs than vice versa (patient-initiated request 9.0%, physician-initiated request 1.2%; p<0.001).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Almost half of respondents (48.7%) were pessimistic about the potential for OSNs to improve patient-doctor communication”
- Also stated in: § Attitudes Toward OSNs · plain
“Almost half of respondents (48.7%) reported that they did not think OSNs had potential for improving patient-doctor communication; 26.4% of respondents agreed that OSNs did have potential to improve patient-doctor communication; and 20.5% of respondents were neutral on this question.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Attitudes Toward OSNs · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A majority did not think it ethically acceptable to interact with patients within OSNs for either social (68.3%) or patient-care (68.0%) reasons.”
- Also stated in: § Attitudes Toward OSNs · plain
“Additionally, a majority did not agree that it was ethically acceptable to interact with patients on OSNs, either for social (68.3%) or patient-care (68.0%) reasons.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Attitudes Toward OSNs · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Very few respondents reported ever requesting friendship of a patient or patient's family member (MS 0%, RP 1.0%, PP 5.3%; p=0.015 for MS vs. PP).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among medical students who reported having received friend requests from patients or family members of patients, all reported accepting them on a case-by-case basis.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The plot of OSN usage by age, (Figure 1), shows OSN usage decreasing with increasing age in two of the three groups (RP and PP).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Usage Patterns
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More than half of the respondents (57.9%) found it ethically unacceptable to visit the profiles of patients on OSNs.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Attitudes Toward OSNs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practicing physicians were more likely to report having patient interactions within OSNs than either medical students or resident physicians (Table 3).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, medical students and resident physicians are more likely to use OSNs than practicing physicians, although this may simply be artifact of the lower age among students and resident physicians.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Personal OSN use among physicians and physicians-in-training mirrors that of the general population.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · boosted
“Our findings demonstrate that physicians and physiciansin-training use OSNs as much or more often than the general population.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · boosted
In the paper
“Based upon previously published data regarding physician response rates to surveys, 12 the expected response rate was 25%.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Study Sample
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(1):61–67. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A majority of respondents view these online interactions as ethically problematic.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“Additionally, a substantial majority of physicians see patient interactions within OSNs, for any reason, as ethically unacceptable.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, data from this study support and add to the growing literature suggesting that OSNs create a new forum for potential dual relationships between physicians, medical students and patients.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This limitation exposes the results to the possibility of self-selection bias.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Those specialties that are seen as having a more longitudinal interaction with patients, often revolving around the care of children (FP, OB/GYN, and pediatrics), were those with the most friend requests.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, as noted above, the low response rate of our study leaves a potential for selection bias which may have skewed the responses in favor of users.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“First, it is common that surveys of medical professionals frequently yield low response rates, 12,27 and, as noted above, the response rate in this study significantly limits the generalizability of study findings.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(1):61–67. source
- Not matchedcites [27] Martin BC. Don’t survey physicians! Chicago: American Medical Association; 1974.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Findings from the present study suggest that a significantly higher proportion of U.S. medical students (94%) report using OSNs for personal use than is suggested by these prior studies, although the percentage of resident users of OSNs (79.4%) is comparable to the Moubarak data.9”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Moubarak G, Guiot A, Benhamou Y, Benhamou A, Hariri S. Facebook activity of residents and fellows and its impact on the doctor-patient relationship. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(2):101–104. source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This range of attitudes toward acceptability of these interactions highlights a lack of consensus regarding the normative stance that physicians and physicians-in-training hold toward such contact.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“although the percentage of resident users of OSNs (79.4%) is comparable to the Moubarak data.9”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Moubarak G, Guiot A, Benhamou Y, Benhamou A, Hariri S. Facebook activity of residents and fellows and its impact on the doctor-patient relationship. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(2):101–104. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Data from the Pew Internet & American Life Project demonstrate that usage of OSNs grew from 61% of aged 18-29 internet users in 2008 to 83% of internet users in January, 2010.4,19”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] Lenhart A (2009) The Democratization of Online Social Networks: A look at the change in demographics of social network users over time. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2009/41--The-Democratization-of-Online-Social-Networks.aspx . Accessed May 3, 2011.
- Not matchedcites [19] Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project (2010) Online News Survey Dataset. http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2010/January-2010--Online-News.aspx . Accessed May 3, 2011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the usage rates of practicing physicians and training physicians are consistent with data from other recent poll-ing.9,19”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Moubarak G, Guiot A, Benhamou Y, Benhamou A, Hariri S. Facebook activity of residents and fellows and its impact on the doctor-patient relationship. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(2):101–104. source
- Not matchedcites [19] Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project (2010) Online News Survey Dataset. http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2010/January-2010--Online-News.aspx . Accessed May 3, 2011.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even among this self-selected sample of physician users of OSN's, our data suggest that most physicians do not feel comfortable interacting with patients within OSNs.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because the survey tool did not undergo formal psychometric validation, we cannot be absolutely sure of the validity and reliability of the findings.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the low response rate precluded a comparison between the different specialties regarding their attitudes toward these interactions, this finding generates questions regarding whether or not there are differences in each of these specialties' attitudes toward patient interactions within OSNs.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
- It may state two separate claims as one. 16
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Thompson et al. describe that 44.5% of medical students and resident physicians at a single public medical school and its affiliated hospital use OSNs.13”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [13] Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, Black EW, Boyer J, Coutts J, Black NP. The intersection of online social networking with medical professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(7):954–957. source
The Description of Facebook Users reports that 362 of 813 medical students and residents (44.5%) had a Facebook account. The Methods identifies them as University of Florida medical students and residents employed by its associated Shands Hospital. Facebook is the online social network measured here. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“93.5% of MS, 79.4% of RP, and 41.6% of PP reported usage of OSNs.”
- Also stated in: § Usage Patterns · plain
“Medical students were more likely to report usage of OSNs than resident or practicing physicians (MS 93.5%, RP 79.4%, PP 41.6%; p<0.001 for all pairwise comparisons).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Usage Patterns · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For those resident physicians who had received friend requests, 57% reported that they never accepted friend requests from patients or their families, and 43% reported that they accepted them on a case-by-case basis.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among all OSN users in this survey, Facebook was the most popular site (used by 99.4% of MS users, 96.2% of RP users, and 96.5% of PP users).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Usage Patterns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty-six percent of MS, 50.0% of RP, and 50.9% of PP used more than one OSN.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Usage Patterns
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty two percent of family practitioners who use OSNs, 38% of obstetricians who use OSNs, and 27% of pediatricians who use OSNs had received friend requests from either a patient or a patient's family member.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of those who had received friend requests, 58% of practicing physicians reported that they always replied”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Patient-doctor Interactions within Online Social Networks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While over one-third of practicing physicians had received a friend request from a patient, only 1.2% of respondents had initiated a friend request.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although a majority of respondents did not view patientdoctor interactions within OSNs as ethically acceptable, just over a third of respondents were either neutral or thought these interactions were ethically appropriate, and almost half (46.9%) were either neutral or thought that OSNs had potential for improving patient-doctor communication.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“26.4% of respondents agreed that OSNs did have potential to improve patient-doctor communication; and 20.5% of respondents were neutral on this question.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Attitudes Toward OSNs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, several recent reports have described patient-doctor interactions within OSNs.[7][8][9]”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“Several published case reports have described patient-doctor interactions within OSNs in the medical literature.[7][8][9]17”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7][8][9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The survey instrument was then piloted among ten resident and practicing physicians, and underwent iterative revision by members of the study team.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study was approved by the joint Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis/Clarian Health System institutional review board.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Study Sample
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall response rate was 16.0% (19.8% MS, 14.3% RP, 14.1% PP).”
- Also stated in: § Respondent Characteristics · plain
“There were a total of 455 survey responses out of 2836 delivered surveys (16.0%response rate), with response rates for each subgroup as follows: 187/945 (19.8%) for MS, 131/917 (14.3%) for RP, and 137/974 (14.1%) for PP.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Respondent Characteristics · plain
In the paper
“Physicians and physicians-in-training descriptively hold a variety of views regarding the ethical acceptability of such interactions, and the normative stance by medical professionals toward these interactions remains to be codified.17”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] Grover M. Defining the patient-physician relationship in the era of Facebook. Acad Med. 2010;85(8):1262. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most recently, Moubarak et al. reported that 73% of residents and fellows utilize Facebook.9”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Moubarak G, Guiot A, Benhamou Y, Benhamou A, Hariri S. Facebook activity of residents and fellows and its impact on the doctor-patient relationship. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(2):101–104. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that 34% of practicing physicians in our sample report having received friend requests from patients supports the idea that many patients feel comfortable approaching with their physicians within OSNs.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, both of these studies estimated usage rates by cross-referencing class lists with Facebook pages, leaving the possibility that usage rates were underestimated.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The structure of OSNs are such that they can dramatically blur the line between public and private spaces.25”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] Rosenblum D. What anyone can know - The privacy risks of social networking sites. Ieee Security & Privacy. 2007;5(3):40–49. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the sample size was low and limits the generalizability of findings, it provides novel information about the use of OSNs by medical professionals.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Surveys returned as undeliverable were excluded from the analysis (59/1004 for MS, 87/1004 for RP, 30/1004 for PP).”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > Respondent Characteristics
plainn = 3,012- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“MacDonald et al. reported that 65% of recent medical school graduates in New Zealand reported using Facebook.18”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] MacDonald J, Sohn S, Ellis P. Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: a dilemma for young doctors. Med Educ. 2010;44(8):805–813. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, both of the comparative studies were carried out in 2008, and usage of OSNs was likely less common at that time.”
§ The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
No studies quantify the incidence of patient-doctor interactions within OSNs by practicing physicians and medical trainees.
“Currently, there are no studies that quantify the incidence of patient-doctor interactions within OSNs by practicing physicians and medical trainees.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
This is the first attempt to quantify on a national level physician and medical student use of OSNs and patient interactions therein.
“To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to quantify on a national level physician and medical student use of OSNs and patient interactions therein.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The AMA Masterfile is recognized as one of the most complete source lists of licensed physicians and medical students in the United States.
“The AMA Masterfile is recognized as one of the most complete source lists of licensed physicians and medical students in the United States.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There were no existing data with which to perform power calculations for this study.
“Because the utilization rates of OSNs and patient interaction data for these populations has not been previously studied, there were no existing data with which to perform power calculations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The expected response rate of 25% would provide sufficient data for reasonable estimates of proportions.
“It was felt that this would provide sufficient data for reasonable estimates of proportions, based on the survey responses.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The list of mailing addresses for potential participants is the most accurate and complete contact data contained in the AMA Masterfile.
“We utilized the mail survey format because the list of mailing addresses for potential participants is the most accurate and complete contact data contained in the AMA Masterfile.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A validated survey tool did not previously exist because of the lack of literature and previous studies on this topic.
“Additionally, the lack of literature and previous studies of this topic meant that a validated survey tool did not previously exist, and had to be created in order to study this topic in this population.”
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“The findings of the study are weakened by the modest response rate of 12.5%, though this is similar to that obtained by other studies using online collection [27,42].”
From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [27]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“another study that showed that online patient-doctor interactions are more often than not started by the patients because healthcare workers do not feel at ease initiating interactions with patients through online platforms where privacy and security issues are far from ideal [48].”
From Future healthcare providers and professionalism on social media: a cross-sectional study (2022) · cites this paper as [48]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This sample size was selected following review of expected response rates to unsolicited, non-incentivized, online medical research surveys [27,29-32] and in consultation with other large Australian-based surveys.”
From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [27]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This figure was considerably lower than the 34.5% of practicing physicians who reported receiving such a request from a patient reported in a recent US study [27].”
From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [27]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These concerns are comparable to those shown in other countries [27] and remain unaltered despite the development of guidelines for social media published by professional organizations before and during the study period [35-39].”
From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [27]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Previous research in the United States showed that 2.3% of medical students had visited a patient’s profile on an online social network [150].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [150]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This is consistent with previous research demonstrating that in addition to the practical barriers to adoption of SM in the professional realm, a generation gap exists, with millennials using SM for contact and information far more frequently than members of generation X and baby boomers [150].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [150]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Very few studies have examined how individuals use peer-generated health information or how HCPs perceive this content, and the research in this area is limited by small sample sizes, poor response rates, and a lack of detail.[20–22]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [20]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This reflects similar usage patterns noted among US doctors [27].”
From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [27]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A 2010 national, random, stratified survey 19 found that 1.2% of medical students, 7.8% of residents, and 34.5% of practicing physicians received friend requests from a patient or a patient's family member.”
From e-Professionalism: A New Frontier in Medical Education (2013) · cites this paper as [19]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is important to note, however, that this study had only a 16% response rate.”
From e-Professionalism: A New Frontier in Medical Education (2013) · cites this paper as [19]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Previous research suggests that patients frequently misjudge the quality of online health information, and many HCPs fear that social media sites spread misinformation and eclipse provider input into individuals’ health decisions.[20–21,33]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [20]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Recent studies estimate that more than 90% of medical students use online social media. 9”
From Beyond Good and Evil: Exploring Medical Trainee Use of Social Media (2012) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“This answer contrasted the findings of two studies, one on medical students and physicians, and the other on pharmacists, which were both against interacting and giving medical advice to patients online [30, 48].”
From Future healthcare providers and professionalism on social media: a cross-sectional study (2022) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“There is no single answer to this question, which is just beginning to be explored in the medical literature.28,36”
From Professionalism in a Digital Age: Opportunities and Considerations for Using Social Media in Health Care (2015) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“Many health care providers have ethical concerns surrounding patient-provider interactions on social media.28”
From Professionalism in a Digital Age: Opportunities and Considerations for Using Social Media in Health Care (2015) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“recent estimates of social media usage by doctors has risen dramatically from 41% in 20101 to 90% in 2011,2”
From Dangers and Opportunities for Social Media in Medicine (2013) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“rates of use have been found to be above 90% for medical students.1,3”
From Dangers and Opportunities for Social Media in Medicine (2013) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Their “Know Your Numbers” campaign launched on YouTube in 2011 has presently received 72,000 views and helped inform about the importance of knowing one’s profile for blood pressure, lipids, and body mass index to prevent heart disease1.”
From Dangers and Opportunities for Social Media in Medicine (2013) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“confirm previous reports that physicians in training use social media networks more commonly than faculty [13–16].”
From Who’s misbehaving? Perceptions of unprofessional social media use by medical students and faculty (2016) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“Therefore, several studies have reported that physicians use social media frequently in their own private lives, however, they rarely use social media to communicate with their patients.6,15”
From Social media and Internet usage of orthopaedic surgeons (2017) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“and some are hesitant about the acceptability of interacting with patients in this new venue with unclear boundaries [7].”
From Social media use by physicians: a qualitative study of the new frontier of medicine (2016) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“In a survey of practicing physicians, approximately one third of physicians who use social networking reported receiving a friend request from a patient or a patient's family member; however only a small minority (5%) had ever extended the friend request themselves.22”
From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“This may have been because respondents assumed that interactions would be occurring on public sites and not secure patient-provider portals”
From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“In another study involving a sample that included medical students, resident physicians, and practicing physicians, the majority of respondents felt that it was equally unethical to interact with patients using online social networks for either social or patient-care reasons.”
From Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications (2013) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“The existing research suggests that half of HCPs believe social media interferes with patient-provider communication and that many providers are concerned that OHCs spread misinformation or are forums for complaining about providers.[20–21]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“Very few studies have examined how individuals use peer-generated health information or how HCPs perceive this content, and the research in this area is limited by small sample sizes, poor response rates, and a lack of detail.[20–22]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“The existing research suggests that half of HCPs believe social media interferes with patient-provider communication and that many providers are concerned that OHCs spread misinformation or are forums for complaining about providers.[20–21]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“Previous research suggests that patients frequently misjudge the quality of online health information, and many HCPs fear that social media sites spread misinformation and eclipse provider input into individuals’ health decisions.[20–21,33]”
From Perceived healthcare provider reactions to patient and caregiver use of online health communities (2014) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“However, a study by Bosslet et al found that about 50% of physicians are pessimistic regarding potential improvements in physician–patient communication, seeing potential threats to patient confidentiality [36].”
In the citing paper
“Many health care providers worry about broadcasting misinformation and its negative influence on patients’ health decisions [54,58,59].”
From Improving the Theoretical Understanding Toward Patient-Driven Health Care Innovation Through Online Value Cocreation: Systematic Review (2020) · cites this paper as [58]
Citations
Cites
Physician response to surveys A review of the literature
Kellerman, S. (2001) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00258-0 · Cited by 956
Hawn, C. (2009) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.361 · Cited by 821
Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students
Chretien, K. C. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1387 · Cited by 448
The Intersection of Online Social Networking with Medical Professionalism
Thompson, L. A., Dawson, K., Ferdig, R., Black, E. W., Boyer, J., Coutts, J., & Black, N. P. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0538-8 · Cited by 425
Online professionalism and the mirror of social media.
Greysen, S. R., Kind, T., & Chretien, K. C. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1447-1 · Cited by 323
What Anyone Can Know: The Privacy Risks of Social Networking Sites
Rosenblum, D. (2007) · IEEE Security & Privacy · doi:10.1109/msp.2007.75 · Cited by 302
(2009) · Issue Lab (Candid) · Cited by 269
Content of Weblogs Written by Health Professionals
Lagu, T., Kaufman, E. J., Asch, D. A., & Armstrong, K. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0726-6 · Cited by 255
Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: a dilemma for young doctors
MacDonald, J., Sohn, S., & Ellis, P. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03720.x · Cited by 245
(2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.68 · Cited by 236
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- American Medical Association (2010) Professionalism in the use of social media. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/meeting/professionalism-social-media.shtml . Accessed May 3, 2011.
- Fletcher D. Facebook. Time. 2010;175(21):32–38.
- Martin BC. Don’t survey physicians! Chicago: American Medical Association; 1974.
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
Antheunis, M. L., Tates, K., & Nieboer, T. E. (2013) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.020 · Cited by 632
McGowan, B. S., Wasko, M. M., Vartabedian, B. S., Miller, R. S., Freiherr, D. D., & Abdolrasulnia, M. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2138 · Cited by 381
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
Dangers and Opportunities for Social Media in Medicine
GEORGE, D. R., ROVNIAK, L. S., & KRASCHNEWSKI, J. L. (2013) · Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/grf.0b013e318297dc38 · Cited by 352
Metadata
- Authors
- Bosslet, G. T., Torke, A. M., Hickman, S. E., Terry, C. L., & Helft, P. R.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bosslet, Gabriel T.
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2011-06-25
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1168-1174
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC3181288
- OpenAlex
- W2017551578
- Semantic Scholar
- 15dfa5f2f1a3625cebaab39f7685819916fcff8c
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 23.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation
- Methodist Health Foundation
- National Institute on Aging (K23AG031323)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Keywords
- social networking sites, physician social media use, patient-doctor communication, medical students, medical residents, practicing physicians, patient confidentiality, medical ethics, physician attitudes
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, United States, Cohort Studies, Internet, Young Adult, Social Networking
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
