Social Media for Networking, Professional Development, and Patient Engagement
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 [123]
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