Cited by 31Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Perception of social media behaviour among medical students, residents and medical specialists

Open access
Pronk, Sebastiaan A., Gorter, Simone L., Van Luijk, Scheltus J., Barnhoorn, Pieter C., Binkhorst, Beer, Van Mook, Walther N. K. A. van Mook·2021·Perspectives on Medical Education

Abstract

Introduction Behaviour is visible in real-life events, but also on social media. While some national medical organizations have published social media guidelines, the number of studies on professional social media use in medical education is limited. This study aims to explore social media use among medical students, residents and medical specialists. Methods An anonymous, online survey was sent to 3844 medical students at two Dutch medical schools, 828 residents and 426 medical specialists. Quantitative, descriptive data analysis regarding demographic data, yes/no questions and Likert scale questions were performed using SPSS. Qualitative data analysis was performed iteratively, independently by two researchers applying the principles of constant comparison, open and axial coding until consensus was reached. Results Overall response rate was 24.8%. Facebook was most popular among medical students and residents; LinkedIn was most popular among medical specialists. Personal pictures and/or information about themselves on social media that were perceived as unprofessional were reported by 31.3% of students, 19.7% of residents and 4.1% of medical specialists. Information and pictures related to alcohol abuse, partying, clinical work or of a sexually suggestive character were considered inappropriate. Addressing colleagues about their unprofessional posts was perceived to be mainly dependent on the nature and hierarchy of the interprofessional relation. Discussion There is a widespread perception that the presence of unprofessional information on social media among the participants and their colleagues is a common occurrence.

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/s40037-021-00660-1

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • In Pronk et al's study of all levels of medical professionals, all investigated groups perceived information or pictures related to alcohol abuse, partying, and sexually suggestive posts to be unprofessional, creating a dissonance between the #medbikini movement's perception of professionalism and collected data.

    “In a recently published paper by Pronk et al [163] that studied all levels of medical professionals (students, residents, and specialists), the authors found that all investigated groups perceived information or pictures to be unprofessional related to alcohol abuse, partying, and sexually suggestive posts, creating a dissonance between the #medbiniki movement’s perception of professionalism and”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [163]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pronk, S. A., Gorter, S. L., Van Luijk, S. J., Barnhoorn, P. C., Binkhorst, B., & Van Mook, W. N. K. A. V. M.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Pronk, Sebastiaan A.
Venue
Perspectives on Medical Education
Published
2021-04-07
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
215-221
ISSN
  • 2212-2761 (ISSN-L)
  • 2212-277X
OpenAlex
W3142381732
Cited by
31
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
social media use, professional conduct, medical students, medical residents, specialist physicians, Facebook, LinkedIn, interprofessional relations, medical education
MeSH terms
Humans, Perception, Schools, Medical, Social Behavior, Students, Medical, Social Media

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