Cited by 19Social Media in Health EducationHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

Patient-targeted Googling and social media: a cross-sectional study of senior medical students

Open access
Chester, Aaron N., Walthert, Susan E., Gallagher, Stephen J., Anderson, Lynley C., Stitely, Michael L.·2017·BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Social media and Internet technologies present several emerging and ill-explored issues for a modern healthcare workforce. One issue is patient-targeted Googling (PTG), which involves a healthcare professional using a social networking site (SNS) or publicly available search engine to find patient information online. The study's aim was to address a deficit in data and knowledge regarding PTG, and to investigate medical student use of SNSs due to a close association with PTG. METHOD: The authors surveyed final year medical students at the Otago Medical School, University of Otago in January 2016. A subset completed focus groups that were analysed using thematic analysis to identify key themes relating to students' attitudes towards PTG, and reasons why they might engage in PTG. RESULTS: Fifty-four students completed the survey (response rate = 65.1%), which showed that PTG was uncommon (n = 9, 16.7%). Attitudes were varied and context dependent. Most participants saw problems with PTG and favoured more explicit guidance on the issue (n = 29, 53.7%). SNS usage was high (n = 51, 94.4%); participants were concerned by the content of their SNS profiles and who they were connecting with online. Participants showing high SNS use were 1.83 times more likely to have conducted PTG than lower use groups. CONCLUSIONS: The diverse attitudes uncovered in this study indicated that teaching or guidelines could be useful to healthcare professionals considering PTG. Though ethically problematic, PTG may be important to patient care and safety. The decision to conduct PTG should be made with consideration of ethical principles and the intended use of the information.

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 · 10.1186/s12910-017-0230-9

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Potential damage to professional image has been depicted by students as concerns about repercussions of their posts on career development or future employment, since employers are checking social media profiles of candidates.

    “Potential damage to the professional image has been depicted by students as concerns about repercussions of their posts on career development or future employment, since employers are checking SM profiles of candidates [43, 45, 51, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 70].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Results (Social networking site usage; page not provided) report that students were concerned about their profiles and that 51.8% had edited them because of potential career effects. The passage does not say that employers check candidates’ social media profiles or link that practice to the students’ concerns. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Students are concerned about the extent of representation of their character on social media; they edit profiles before interviews or career fairs or intend to review or modify their profiles when they become qualified.

    “Students are concerned about the extent of representation of the students’ character on SM; they edit profiles before interviews or career fairs [57,70] or intend to review or modify their profiles when they become qualified [45,51].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Results, under “Social networking site usage” (page not provided), report concerns about profile content and say that 28 students (51.8%) had edited their profiles because of potential career effects. They do not say the edits occurred before interviews or career fairs, or that students intended to review or modify profiles once qualified. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Numerous studies document blurred boundaries between patients and health care professionals, and between students and faculty.

    “Numerous studies document blurred boundaries between patient and HCPs, and between students and faculty [40, 43, 47, 59, 64, 65, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78, 82, 85, 98, 100, 105, 107, 114, 117].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Background (page unavailable) explicitly says social media and the Internet blur professional boundaries in the doctor–patient relationship. The Results, ‘Social networking site usage’ (page unavailable), report students’ views on online connections with patients and superiors, but do not identify those superiors as faculty or specifically document blurred student–faculty boundaries. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Students depict potential damage to professional image as a concern about repercussions of their posts on career development or future employment because employers check social media profiles of candidates.

    “Potential damage to professional image has been depicted by students as a concern about repercussions of their posts, on career development, or on future employment since employers are checking SM profiles of candidates [43, 45, 51, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 70].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Results section, “Social networking site usage” (page unavailable), reports that 51.8% of senior medical students edited their profiles because of potential career effects, supporting concern about repercussions of posts. It does not report that employers check candidates’ profiles or link the students’ concern specifically to future employment. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A wide range of opinions exists on the acceptability of online interaction with patients, ranging from one-third of medical students in Brazil finding it unacceptable to 92% of senior medical students in New Zealand.

    “Although online interaction with a patient is generally not acceptable nor endorsed, a wide range of opinions have been observed concerning this issue, ranging from one-third for medical students in Brazil [59] that find this unacceptable to 92% for senior medical students in New Zealand [70].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Results (Social networking site usage) report that 50 of 54 senior New Zealand medical students (92.6%) considered accepting a patient’s online friend request inappropriate. This supports the approximate percentage, but the finding concerns that specific interaction, not online interaction with patients generally. The Brazil figure is attributed to a different citation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chester, A. N., Walthert, S. E., Gallagher, S. J., Anderson, L. C., & Stitely, M. L.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Chester, Aaron N.
Venue
BMC Medical Ethics
Published
2017-12
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
70-70
ISSN
1472-6939 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2773303151
Cited by
19
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Medical Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Otago
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
social media use, medical students, search engine use, online patient information, professional ethics, patient safety, online privacy concerns
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude, Cross-Sectional Studies, Ethics, Medical, Female, Humans, Male, New Zealand, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Medical, Focus Groups, Privacy, Young Adult, Information Seeking Behavior, Search Engine, 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