CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationImpact of Technology on Adolescents

A national cross-sectional survey of social networking practices of U.S. anesthesiology residency program directors

Barker, Andrew L., Wehbe-Janek, Hania, Bhandari, Naumit S., Bittenbinder, Timothy M., Jo, ChanHee, McAllister, Russell K.·2012·Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinane.2012.06.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Study objective To determine the social networking practices of directors of anesthesiology residency programs.Design Cross-sectional survey.Setting Online and paper survey tool.Subjects 132 anesthesiology residency program directors in the United States.Measurements A 13-item survey including dichotomous and multiple choice responses was administered using an online survey tool and a paper survey. Data analysis was conducted by descriptive and analytical statistics (chi-square test). A P-value < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.Main results 50% of anesthesiology program directors responded to the survey (66/132). Policies governing social networking practices were in place for 30.3% (n=20) of the programs' hospitals. The majority of program directors (81.8%, 54) reported never having had an incident involving reprimand of a resident or fellow for inappropriate social networking practices. The majority (66.7%, n=44) of responding programs reported that departments did not provide lectures or educational activities related to appropriate social networking practices. Monitoring of social networking habits of residents/fellows by program directors mainly occurs if they are alerted to a problem (54.5%, n=36). Frequent use of the Internet for conducting searches on a resident applicant was reported by 12.1% (n=8) of program directors, 30.3% (n=20) reported use a few times, and 57.6% (n=38) reported never using the Internet in this capacity.Conclusion Residency programs should have a written policy related to social media use. Residency program directors should be encouraged to become familiar with the professionalism issues related to social media use in order to serve as adequate resident mentors within this new and problematic aspect of medical ethics and professionalism.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinane.2012.06.002

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barker, A. L., Wehbe-Janek, H., Bhandari, N. S., Bittenbinder, T. M., Jo, C., & McAllister, R. K.
Affiliations
Texas A&M Health Science Center (US)
ORCID
McAllister, Russell K.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
24
Issue
8
Pages
618-624
ISSN
0952-8180 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinane.2012.06.002
OpenAlex
W2158584004
Cited by
21
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
social networking, social media use, anesthesiology residency, residency program directors, medical professionalism, medical ethics
MeSH terms
Anesthesiology, Cross-Sectional Studies, Data Collection, Humans, Internship and Residency, United States, Organizational Policy, Internet, 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