Cited by 29Social Media in Health EducationImpact of Technology on AdolescentsInnovations in Medical Education

Defining a Mismatch: Differences in Usage of Social Networking Sites Between Medical Students and the Faculty Who Teach Them

Brisson, Gregory E., Fisher, Matthew J., LaBelle, Mark W., Kozmic, Sarah E.·2015·Teaching and Learning in Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1080/10401334.2015.1011648

Cites

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?

  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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%).”
  • 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].”

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
Published
2015-04-03
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
208-214
ISSN
  • 1040-1334 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8015
OpenAlex
W2071678069
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