Cited by 161Social Media in Health EducationWeb and Library ServicesMedia and Digital Communication

Social media and physicians: Exploring the benefits and challenges

Open access
Panahi, Sirous, Watson, Jason, Partridge, Helen·2016·Health Informatics Journal

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1460458214540907

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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].”
  • 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).”

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

  1. 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)
  2. Von Muhlen M and Ohno-Machado L. Reviewing social media use by clinicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19: 777-781.
  3. 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
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
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