Social media and physicians: Exploring the benefits and challenges
Open accessAbstract
Healthcare professionals’ use of social media platforms, such as blogs, wikis, and social networking web sites has grown considerably in recent years. However, few studies have explored the perspectives and experiences of physicians in adopting social media in healthcare. This article aims to identify the potential benefits and challenges of adopting social media by physicians and demonstrates this by presenting findings from a survey conducted with physicians. A qualitative survey design was employed to achieve the research goal. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 physicians from around the world who were active users of social media. The data were analyzed using the thematic analysis approach. The study revealed six main reasons and six major challenges for physicians adopting social media. The main reasons to join social media were as follows: staying connected with colleagues, reaching out and networking with the wider community, sharing knowledge, engaging in continued medical education, benchmarking, and branding. The main challenges of adopting social media by physicians were also as follows: maintaining confidentiality, lack of active participation, finding time, lack of trust, workplace acceptance and support, and information anarchy. By revealing the main benefits as well as the challenges of adopting social media by physicians, the study provides an opportunity for healthcare professionals to better understand the scope and impact of social media in healthcare, and assists them to adopt and harness social media effectively, and maximize the benefits for the specific needs of the clinical community.
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?
Benefits of social media on e-professionalism of health care professionals, identified in this scoping review as professional networking and collaboration, have been documented in previous research for physicians, nursing, or other health care professionals.
“The benefits of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs, identified in this scoping review as professional networking and collaboration, have been documented in previous research for physicians [121-123], nursing profession [124,125], or other HCPs [126-129].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [122]
Most surgeons (85%) have experienced a patient bringing information to an appointment from the Internet.
“Most surgeons (85%) have experienced a patient bringing information to an appointment from the Internet (15).”
From Social Media and the Orthopaedic Surgeon: a Mixed Methods Study (2019) · cites this paper as [15]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 20 · Cited by 161
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Manhattan Research LLC. Taking the pulse® U.S.12.0, http://manhattanresearch.com/News-and-Events/Press-Releases/physician-digital- media-adoption (2012, accessed 30 Aug 2013)
- Von Muhlen M and Ohno-Machado L. Reviewing social media use by clinicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19: 777-781.
- Li J. Privacy policies for health social networking sites. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20: 704-707.
- Authors
- Panahi, S., Watson, J., & Partridge, H.
- Affiliations
- Iran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Panahi, Sirous
- Venue
- Health Informatics Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2014-07-18
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 99-112
- ISSN
- 1355-4743 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-4582
- 1741-2811
- OpenAlex
- W2168390453
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 11.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- eprints.qut.edu.au
- Locations
- Health Informatics Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) (acceptedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Keywords
- social media, physicians, healthcare workers, technology adoption, professional networking, knowledge sharing, continuing medical education, confidentiality, workplace acceptance, trust, information overload
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Confidentiality, Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Physicians, Qualitative Research, Blogging, 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