The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 1 · Cited by 16
- Authors
- Campbell, E. G., Donelan, K., DesRoches, C., Roman, A., & Bolcic-Jankovic, D.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
- Mathematica Policy Research (US)
- University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Eric G.
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2012-02-07
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 403-403
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC3304029
- OpenAlex
- W2137834938
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- social networking sites, physician social media use, physician-patient relationship, survey response rates, nonresponse bias, survey weighting
- MeSH terms
- Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Physician-Patient Relations, Internet, 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.
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
