Fostering interpersonal trust on social media: physicians' perspectives and experiences
Open accessAbstract
Background: The problem of developing and sustaining mutual trust is one of the main barriers to knowledge sharing on social media platforms such as blogs, wikis, micro-blogs and social networking websites. While many studies argue that mutual trust is necessary for online communication and knowledge sharing, few have actually explored and demonstrated how physicians can establish and sustain trusted relationships on social media. Objectives: To identify approaches through which physicians establish interpersonal trust on social media. Methods: Twenty-four physicians, who were active users of social media, were interviewed using a semi-structured approach between 2013 and 2014. Snowball sampling was employed for participant recruitment. The data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. Results: Physicians trust their peers on social media in a slightly different way than in face-to-face communication. The study found that the majority of participants established trust on social media mainly through previous personal interaction, authenticity and relevancy of voice, professional standing, consistency of communication, peer recommendation, and non-anonymous and moderated sites. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals need to approach social media carefully when using it for knowledge sharing, networking and developing trusted relations with like-minded peers.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
A total of 11 studies conducted in-depth or semistructured interviews, and 6 studies used focus groups.
“A total of 11 studies conducted in-depth or semistructured interviews [34,36,44,49,58,65,73,76,97,104,117], and 6 studies used focus groups [45,49,58,70,112,117].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
A total of 8 studies were conducted in several countries simultaneously.
“A total of 8 studies were conducted in several countries simultaneously [32-39].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Some studies emphasize social media benefits of peer-to-peer advising or learning, provision of emotional support, and identifying approaches through which physicians establish interpersonal trust on social media.
“Some studies emphasize SM benefits of peer-to-peer advising or learning, provision of emotional support, and identifying approaches through which physicians establish interpersonal trust on SM [36,45,92].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Social media benefits e-professionalism by improving established networks or enabling collaboration through social media sites.
“The benefits of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs can be seen as improvements of established networks or possibilities for collaboration through SM sites [33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 44-46, 53, 69, 72, 76, 78, 79, 92, 97, 106-108, 117].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
The majority of participants established trust on social media mainly through previous personal interaction, authenticity and relevancy of voice, professional standing, consistency of communication, peer recommendation, and nonanonymous and moderated sites.
“The study found that the majority of participants established trust on SM mainly through previous personal interaction, authenticity and relevancy of voice, professional standing, consistency of communication, peer recommendation, and nonanonymous and moderated sites.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Panahi et al recognized the problem of developing and sustaining mutual trust as one of the main barriers to knowledge sharing on social media platforms.
“Panahi et al [36] recognized the problem of developing and sustaining mutual trust as one of the main barriers to knowledge sharing on SM platforms [36].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Benefits of social media on e-professionalism of health care professionals can be seen as improvements of established networks or possibilities for collaboration through social media sites.
“Benefits of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs can be seen as improvements of established networks or possibilities for collaboration through SM sites [33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 44-46, 53, 69, 72, 76, 78, 79, 92, 97, 106-108, 117].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Physicians trust their peers on social media in a slightly different way than in face-to-face communication.
“Physicians trust their peers on SM in a slightly different way than in face-to-face communication.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Benefits of peer advice, learning from peers, provision of emotional support, and identifying approaches through which physicians establish interpersonal trust on social media are novel insights into the domain of e-professionalism of health care professionals on social media.
“The benefits of peer advice, learning from peers, provision of emotional support, and identifying approaches through which physicians establish interpersonal trust on SM [36,45,92] are novel insights into the domain of e-professionalism of HCPs on SM.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
Several studies, including the current results, have reported the first two items as being the highest ranked in the perception of unprofessional behaviour.
“Several studies, including our current results, have reported the first two items as being the highest ranked in the perception of unprofessional behaviour [12, 13, 57].”
From Differences between doctors of medicine and dental medicine in the perception of professionalism on social networking sites: the development of the e-professionalism assessment compatibility index (ePACI) (2022) · cites this paper as [57]
The Discussion (page unavailable) describes how physicians establish trust on social media, and the Professional standing section discusses assessing other users’ qualifications. Neither reports ranked perceptions of unprofessional behaviour or identifies two highest-ranked items. Searches for those terms found no passage addressing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPosting of unprofessional content was highly prevalent among medical students in Australia despite understanding that this might be considered inappropriate and despite awareness of professionalism guidelines.
“Posting of unprofessional content was highly prevalent among medical students in Australia despite understanding that this might be considered inappropriate and despite awareness of professionalism guidelines.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
The Participants section (page unavailable) describes physicians, some based in Australia, not Australian medical students. The Abstract and Participants’ use of social media sections (pages unavailable) address physicians’ trust and professional social-media use; searches for unprofessional posts, student awareness of inappropriateness, and professionalism guidelines found no passage reporting the claimed prevalence or awareness. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured34.7% of Australian medical students reported unprofessional content.
“A total of 34.7% of students reported unprofessional content (eg, evidence of being intoxicated 34.2%, illegal drug use 1.6%, posting patient information 1.6%, and depictions of an illegal act 1.1%) [36].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
The Participants and Recruiting the participants sections describe interviews with 24 physicians, not a survey of medical students. Searches for “34.7%” and for unprofessional content, intoxication, drug use, and patient information found no passage reporting the claimed percentages in our copy; page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.77)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Chiu, C., Hsu, M., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.001 · Cited by 3,198 · see citing works
A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research
Burnard, P. (1991) · Nurse Education Today · doi:10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-y · Cited by 2,510 · see citing works
Hsu, M., Ju, T., Yen, C., & Chang, C. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.003 · Cited by 1,521 · see citing works
Antheunis, M. L., Tates, K., & Nieboer, T. E. (2013) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.020 · Cited by 632 · see citing works
Determinants of knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies
Paroutis, S., & Saleh, A. A. (2009) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270910971824 · Cited by 395 · see citing works
McGowan, B. S., Wasko, M. M., Vartabedian, B. S., Miller, R. S., Freiherr, D. D., & Abdolrasulnia, M. (2012) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2138 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation on the role of trust
Chai, S., & Kim, M. (2010) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.02.005 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Use of Social Media Across US Hospitals: Descriptive Analysis of Adoption and Utilization
Griffis, H. M., Kilaru, A. S., Werner, R. M., Asch, D. A., Hershey, J. C., Hill, S., Ha, Y. P., Sellers, A. M., Mahoney, K. B., & Merchant, R. M. (2014) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.3758 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Relevant factors for tacit knowledge transfer within organisations
Jóia, L. A., & Lemos, B. (2010) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673271011050139 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Web 2.0 Social Networks: The Role of Trust
Grabner‐Kräuter, S. (2009) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0603-1 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Social media and physicians: Exploring the benefits and challenges
Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H. (2016) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/1460458214540907 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Self-citationTrust in online social networks: A multifaceted perspective
Grabner‐Kräuter, S., & Bitter, S. (2013) · Forum for Social Economics · doi:10.1080/07360932.2013.781517 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
(2013) · Forum for Social Economics · doi:10.1007/12143.1874-6381 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Physicians who use social media and other internet-based communication technologies
Cooper, C. P., Gelb, C. A., Rim, S. H., Hawkins, N. A., Rodriguez, J. L., & Polonec, L. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000628 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Trust, Reliance and the Internet
Pettit, P. N. (2004) · Analyse & Kritik · doi:10.1515/auk-2004-0106 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
A cross-sectional study of the presence of United Kingdom (UK) plastic surgeons on social media
Mabvuure, N. T., Rodrigues, J. N., Klimach, S. G., & Nduka, C. C. (2014) · Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.12.015 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Analysis of emergency physicians' Twitter accounts
Lulić, I., & Ković, I. (2012) · Emergency Medicine Journal · doi:10.1136/emermed-2012-201132 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Usher, W. T. (2012) · Australian Journal of Primary Health · doi:10.1071/py10084 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Martin‐Niemi, F., & Greatbanks, R. (2010) · VINE · doi:10.1108/03055721011024892 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
An exploration of the use of social media by surgical colleges
Ralston, M. R., O’Neill, S., Wigmore, S. J., & Harrison, E. M. (2014) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.10.035 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Gordeyeva, I. (2010) · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Trust Management in an Agent-Based Grid Resource Brokering System-Preliminary Considerations
Ganzha, M., Paprzycki, M., Lirkov, I., & Todorov, M. D. (2007) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/1.2806037 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
A System Architecture for the 7C Knowledge Environment
Räisänen, T., & Oinas‐Kukkonen, H. (2007) · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XIX
Jaakkola, H., Kiyoki, Y., & Tokuda, T. (2008) · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Re-Examining Trust Development and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Teams
Son, S. J., & Kim, E. J. (2011) · Advances in human resources management and organizational development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-533-9.ch006 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Saura, J. R., Soriano, D. R., & Palacios‐Marqués, D. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102331 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Vukušić Rukavina, T., Viskić, J., Machala Poplašen, L., Relić, D., Marelić, M., Jokic, D., & Sedak, K. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/25770 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Understanding trust on social networking sites among tertiary students: An empirical study in Ghana
Koranteng, F. N., Wiafe, I., Katsriku, F. A., & Apau, R. (2019) · Applied Computing and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aci.2019.07.003 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Social Media and the Orthopaedic Surgeon: a Mixed Methods Study
(2019) · Acta Informatica Medica · doi:10.5455/aim.2019.27.23-28 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Chen, Y., Wu, J., Ma, J., Zhu, H., Li, W., & Gan, Y. (2021) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2021.1900573 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Understanding the trust building mechanisms in social media
Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., Shen, X., Wang, N., Zhang, X., & Wu, Y. (2018) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/ajim-03-2018-0072 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Lu, R., Zhao, S., Wang, X., Zhou, J., Ou, W., JIANG, Y., Wen, J., & Hu, L. (2023) · INQUIRY The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing · doi:10.1177/00469580231152071 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Top 100 Urology Influencers on Twitter: Is Social Media Influence Associated with Academic Impact?
Corsi, N. J., Nguyen, D., Butaney, M., Majdalany, S. E., Corsi, M. P., Malchow, T., Piontkowski, A. J., Trinh, Q., Loeb, S., & Abdollah, F. (2022) · European Urology Focus · doi:10.1016/j.euf.2022.09.009 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Viskić, J., Marelić, M., Machala Poplašen, L., & Vukušić Rukavina, T. (2022) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-022-00870-0 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Collegial “nests” can foster critical thinking, innovative ideas, and scientific progress
Schwab, A., & Starbuck, W. H. (2016) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127016643715 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Luisetto, M., & Mokbul, M. I. (2016) · International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences · doi:10.4172/2162-6359.1000339 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Impact of online social media on consumers’ purchasing intention via social network sites
Thảo, H. T. P., & Hoa, N. L. T. (2020) · PROCEEDINGS · doi:10.46223/hcmcoujs.econ.en.8.1.170.2018 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Undergraduate Students’ Trust in Using Social Networking Sites
Hossain, M. M., & Adnan, H. M. (2021) · Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business · doi:10.17687/jeb.v9i2.770 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Process and findings informing the development of a provincial emergency medicine network
Abu‐Laban, R. B., Drebit, S. K., Svendson, B., Chan, N. H.-M., Ho, K., Khazei, A., Lindstrom, R. R., Lund, A., Marsden, J., & Christenson, J. M. (2019) · Healthcare Management Forum · doi:10.1177/0840470419844276 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Disseminating Healthcare Simulation Research
Cheng, A., Thoma, B., & Meguerdichian, M. J. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26837-4_41 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Luisetto, M. (2016) · Journal of Business & Financial Affairs · doi:10.4172/2167-0234.1000205
Dash, N. R., Hasswan, A. A. A., Dias, J. M., Abdullah, N., Eladl, M. A., Khalaf, K., Farooq, A., & Guraya, S. Y. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1486153/v1
Viskić, J., Marelić, M., Poplašen, L. M., & Rukavina, T. V. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1715693/v1
Viskić, J., Marelić, M., Poplašen, L. M., & Vukušić Rukavina, T. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26550931
- Authors
- Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H.
- Affiliations
- Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Panahi, Sirous
- Venue
- Postgraduate Medical Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-12-01
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 1084
- Pages
- 70-73
- ISSN
- 0032-5473 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0756
- OpenAlex
- W2251036962
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 1.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.usq.edu.au
- Locations
- Postgraduate Medical Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) (acceptedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Keywords
- interpersonal trust, social media, physicians, knowledge sharing, peer relationships, authenticity, professional status, peer recommendations, online communication
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Communication, Ethics, Medical, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Peer Group, Physicians, Internet, Professional Role, Social Networking, 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
