Cited by 185Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health EducationPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

How patients’ use of social media impacts their interactions with healthcare professionals

Benetoli, A., Chen, T.F., Aslani, P.·2018·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Introduction Patients are increasingly accessing online health information and have become more participatory in their engagement with the advent of social media (SM). This study explored how patients' use of SM impacted their interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs).Methods Focus groups (n=5) were conducted with 36 patients with chronic conditions and on medication who used SM for health-related purposes. The discussions lasted 60-90min, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed.Results Participants did not interact with HCPs on SM and were not expecting to do so as they used SM exclusively for peer interactions. Most reported improvement in the patient-HCP relationship due to increased knowledge, better communication, and empowerment. Participants supplemented HCP-provided information with peer interactions on SM, and prepared themselves for consultations. They shared online health information with HCPs, during consultations, to validate it and to actively participate in the decision-making. Although some participants reported HCP support for their online activities, most perceived overt or tacit opposition.Conclusion Participants perceived that their SM use positively impacted relationships with HCPs. They felt empowered and were more assertive in participating in decision-making.Practice implications HCPs should be aware of patients' activities and expectations, and support them in their online activities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2017.08.015

Cites

42 of 42 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

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benetoli, A., Chen, T. F., & Aslani, P.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Benetoli, A.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
439-444
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2753913077
Cited by
185
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 2
FWCI
20.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Young Pharmacist Group (YPG)
  • Brazilian Government/National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
social media use, physician-patient relationship, patient engagement, chronic disease, online health information, peer interaction, shared decision-making, patient empowerment, medication use
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Communication, Decision Making, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Perception, Power, Psychological, Professional-Patient Relations, Referral and Consultation, Focus Groups, Internet, Qualitative Research, 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