CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationHealth, Medicine and Society

Social Media and Medical Professionalism: Rethinking the Debate and the Way Forward

Fenwick, Tara·2014·Academic Medicine
DOI 10.1097/acm.0000000000000436
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This Perspective addresses the growing literature about online medical professionalism. Whereas some studies point to the positive potential of social media to enhance and extend medical practice, the dominant emphasis is on the risks and abuses of social media. Overall evidence regarding online medical professionalism is (as with any new area of practice) limited; however, simply accumulating more evidence, without critically checking the assumptions that frame the debate, risks reinforcing negativity toward social media. In this Perspective, the author argues that the medical community should step back and reconsider its assumptions regarding both professionalism and the digital world of social media. Toward this aim, she outlines three areas for critical rethinking by educators and students, administrators, professional associations, and researchers. First she raises some cautions regarding the current literature on using social media in medical practice, which sometimes leaps too quickly from description to prescription. Second, she discusses professionalism. Current debates about the changing nature and contexts of professionalism generally might be helpful in reconsidering notions of online medical professionalism specifically. Third, the author argues that the virtual world itself and its built-in codes deserve more critical scrutiny. She briefly summarizes new research from digital studies both to situate the wider trends more critically and to appreciate the evolving implications for medical practice. Next, the author revisits the potential benefits of social media, including their possibilities to signal new forms of professionalism. Finally, the Perspective ends with specific suggestions for further research that may help move the debate forward.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000000436

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • Risks such as privacy and accuracy of information, compromising confidentiality, eroding public trust, and loosening accountability were presented in previous research.

    “Likewise, risks such as privacy and accuracy of information, compromising confidentiality, eroding public trust, and loosening accountability were presented in previous research [156,188,189].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [188]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fenwick, T.
Affiliations
University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
Fenwick, Tara
Venue
Academic Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-10
Volume
89
Issue
10
Pages
1331-1334
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/acm.0000000000000436
OpenAlex
W2072982398
Cited by
34
References
19
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
social media, medical professionalism, online professionalism, medical practice, digital ethics, professional codes, medical education, professional associations, digital studies
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Physician's Role, Professional Competence, 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