Cited by 117Social Media in Health EducationSocial Media and PoliticsHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Social Media for Networking, Professional Development, and Patient Engagement

Markham, Merry Jennifer, Gentile, Danielle, Graham, David L.·2017·American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book

Abstract

Social media has become an established method of communication, and many physicians are finding these interactive tools and platforms to be useful for both personal and professional use. Risks of social media, or barriers to its use, include perceived lack of time, privacy concerns, and the risk of damage to one’s reputation by unprofessional behavior. Of the social media platforms, Twitter has become favored by physicians and other health care professionals. Although one of the most obvious uses of social media is for rapid dissemination and receipt of information, oncologists are finding that social media is important for networking through blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. These platforms also have potential for providing opportunities for professional development, such as finding collaborators through networking, participation in Twitter journal clubs, and participating in online case-based tumor boards. Social media can also be used for patient engagement, such as through participation in tweet chats. There is emerging data that patient engagement through these platforms may lead to improvement in some health-related outcomes; however, data are sparse for oncology-specific outcomes. Efforts are underway to determine how to assess how social media engagement impacts health outcomes in oncology patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/edbk_180077

Cites

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?

  • 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].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 117

Authors
Markham, M. J., Gentile, D., & Graham, D. L.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Venue
American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book
Published
2017-05
Volume
37
Issue
37
Pages
782-787
ISSN
  • 1548-8748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-8756
OpenAlex
W2617692505
Cited by
117
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Society for Medical Oncology
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
social media, physicians, professional networking, professional development, patient engagement, Twitter, journal club, professional reputation, privacy concerns, barriers to social media use
MeSH terms
Communication, Health Personnel, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Participation, Physicians, 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