Defining a Mismatch: Differences in Usage of Social Networking Sites Between Medical Students and the Faculty Who Teach Them
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of social networking sites (SNS) by medical students is increasing, and some students lack awareness of pitfalls arising from the intersection of social networking and medicine. Many institutions have developed guidelines on using SNS, but they are insufficient for students. Educators need new methods to train students on the appropriate use of this technology, but more information is needed before implementing change. PURPOSES: Differences in SNS usage between students and faculty were examined. The goal was to evaluate four content areas: SNS usage patterns, attitudes regarding activity on SNS, experience with patient interactions online, and awareness of institutional guidelines on use of SNS. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey took place at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, in 2012. Participants included all students and a cohort of faculty who teach them in a class on professionalism. RESULTS: The response rate was 42% by students (300/711) and 78% by faculty (31/40). Of the students, 94% use SNS, compared to 48% of faculty. Students were more likely than faculty to display content they would not want patients to see (57% vs. 27%), report seeing inappropriate content on colleagues' SNS profiles (64% vs. 42%), and ignore harmful postings by colleagues (25% vs. 7%). Faculty were more likely than students to have been approached by patients on SNS (53% vs. 3%). Most participants were unlikely to conduct Internet searches on patients. CONCLUSIONS: Students are more likely than faculty to use SNS and use it very differently than faculty. Students would benefit from training on appropriate use of SNS. Topics that should be addressed include editing one's online presence, managing friend requests from patients, dealing with colleagues who post harmful content, conducting Internet searches on patients, and discussion of boundaries to identify potential harms associated with SNS usage. Differences in usage between students and faculty raise questions if faculty are well suited to provide this training.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Several studies demonstrated a generation gap in social media use, where students are more likely than faculty to use social media.
“Several studies demonstrated a “generation gap” in SM use, where students are more likely than faculty to use SM [114,115,117,118].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Medical students were more likely than faculty to ignore harmful postings by colleagues (25% vs 7%).
“Medical students were more likely than faculty to display content they would not want patients to see (57% vs 27%), report seeing inappropriate content on colleagues’ SNS profiles (64% vs 42%), and ignore harmful postings by colleagues (25% vs 7%) [114].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Medical students were more likely than faculty to display content they would not want patients to see (57% vs 27%).
“Medical students were more likely than faculty to display content they would not want patients to see (57% vs 27%), report seeing inappropriate content on colleagues’ SNS profiles (64% vs 42%), and ignore harmful postings by colleagues (25% vs 7%) [114].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Faculty were more likely than students to have been approached by patients on social networking sites (53% vs 3%).
“Brisson et al [114] found that faculty were more likely than students to have been approached by patients on SNSs (53% vs 3%).”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Medical students were more likely than faculty to report seeing inappropriate content on colleagues' social networking site profiles (64% vs 42%).
“Medical students were more likely than faculty to display content they would not want patients to see (57% vs 27%), report seeing inappropriate content on colleagues’ SNS profiles (64% vs 42%), and ignore harmful postings by colleagues (25% vs 7%) [114].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Even if institutions have social media policies or guidelines, health care professionals acknowledged reluctant behavior regarding existing social media policies or ignorance of their existence.
“Contrary to that finding, even if institutions have SM policies or guidelines, HCPs acknowledged reluctant behavior regarding existing SM policies [78,85,114] or ignorance to their existence [61,64,65,100].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Half of medical students and faculty were unaware of existing institutional social media guidelines.
“A lack of awareness of existing institutional SM policies was also observed for physiotherapists; 41.6% were not aware whether there was one or not [85], and half of the medical students and faculty were unaware of existing institutional SM guidelines [114].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Age difference in the term older and wiser, meaning more cautious about posting unprofessional behavior online, was proven in studies comparing students' and faculties' online behavior.
“Age difference in the term “older and wiser,” meaning more cautious about posting unprofessional behavior online, was proven in studies comparing students’ and faculties’ online behavior [114,118].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Surveys that captured students' self-report of posted unprofessional behavior reported witnessing the investigated examples with varying frequencies.
“Surveys that captured students’ self-report of posted unprofessional behavior (eg, evidence of being intoxicated, illegal drug use, posting patient information, sharing clinical images inappropriately, and depictions of an illegal act) reported witnessing the investigated examples with varying frequencies [32,42,43,55,59,62,64,73,114,118].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
The perception of unprofessional behavior varies among health care professionals, mostly associated with age of the participants.
“Our previous findings demonstrate that the perception of unprofessional behavior varies among HCPs, mostly associated with age of the participants [86,109,114,118].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
Even if institutions have social media policies or guidelines, health care professionals acknowledged reluctant behavior regarding existing social media policies or ignorance to their existence.
“Our results show that even though a lack of SM policies was recognized as a barrier, even if institutions have SM policies or guidelines, HCPs acknowledged reluctant behavior regarding existing SM policies [78,85,114] or ignorance to their existence [61,64,65,100].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 29
- Authors
- Brisson, G. E., Fisher, M. J., LaBelle, M. W., & Kozmic, S. E.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brisson, Gregory E.
- Venue
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-04-03
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 208-214
- ISSN
- 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8015
- OpenAlex
- W2071678069
- Semantic Scholar
- cee3725deb577f3f906eedae3b0a641254bc8eb8
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching and Learning in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Feinberg School of Medicine
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- social networking sites, medical students, faculty, teacher professionalism, online privacy, medical education
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude to Computers, Cross-Sectional Studies, Education, Medical, Undergraduate, Ethics, Medical, Faculty, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical, Guideline Adherence, 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