Cited by 43Social Media in Health EducationEthics and bioethics in healthcareMedical and Health Sciences Research

Facebook friend request from a patient?

Open access
Devi, Sharmila·2011·The Lancet

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 · 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60449-2

Cites

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?

  • There is uncertainty as to how a doctor ought to respond to a friend request from a patient via social media.

    “For example, there is uncertainty as to how a doctor ought to respond to a “friend request” from a patient via social media, despite poor handling of the situation potentially affecting the viability of the therapeutic relationship [18].”

    From How Doctors View and Use Social Media: A National Survey (2014) · cites this paper as [18]

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

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Devi, S.
Corresponding author
Devi, Sharmila
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
377
Issue
9772
Pages
1141-1142
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2006282541
Cited by
43
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
Keywords
social networking sites, Facebook, physician-patient relationship, professional boundaries, medical ethics, confidentiality, codes of conduct, blogs, physician assistants, physician-patient communication
MeSH terms
Australia, Canada, Confidentiality, United Kingdom, Humans, Patients, Physicians, Societies, Medical, United States, Internet, Codes of Ethics, Friends, Trust

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