Physicians in Cyberspace: Finding Boundaries
Abstract
Social media particularly Facebook has become a popular platform amongst medical professionals for both social and professional interactions. However, given the nature of such platforms, their use raises ethical concerns including violation of patient privacy and blurring of classical professional and patient-physician relationship boundaries. In order to investigate the pattern of Facebook usage among medical professionals in Pakistan, a mixed method study was conducted at five medical institutions in three different cities including Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad. 806 participants, including 87 faculty members, 239 trainees and 350 medical students, responded to the quantitative survey. Results were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). For the qualitative arm, focus group discussions and in-depth interviews were conducted among different groups, and analysed to draw out common themes. Results show that 44% of respondents found professional utility for Facebook. 36% of respondents had never changed their privacy settings and 44% indicated lack of confidence in current privacy settings of the medium. Respondents had posted identifiable patient content (7%) and non-identifiable patient content (10%), with students and trainees posting such content more frequently than faculty.
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?
In 2 studies, the vast majority of health care professionals used their own names on Facebook.
“Use of real names was investigated in 2 studies; in both, the vast majority of HCPs used their own names on Facebook [51,117]”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
Studies showed privacy settings deployment from 71% to 97% among health care professionals.
“Studies showed privacy settings deployment from 71% to 97% among HCPs [40,42,65,66,68,96,100,115,117,118].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
Several studies demonstrated a generation gap in social media use, where students are more likely than faculty to use social media.
“Several studies demonstrated a “generation gap” in SM use, where students are more likely than faculty to use SM [114,115,117,118].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
Social media provide students, residents, and faculty a good discussion medium and an engaging way to get high-quality current information.
“SM provide for students, residents, and faculty a good discussion medium and an engaging way to get high-quality current information [79,117].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
Loosening accountability is a danger to e-professionalism from two points of view: eroding public trust by providing poor quality of information on social media and damaging the professional image.
“According to some studies in this review, loosening accountability can be seen as a danger to e-professionalism from two points of view: eroding public trust by providing poor quality of information on SM [39,106,117] and damaging to the professional image [43, 45, 51, 56, 57, 59, 64, 66, 68, 70, 73, 102, 106, 112].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
In Jafarey et al's study, almost half of faculty members found it inappropriate to friend a current student.
“In Jafarey et al’s [117] study, almost half of faculty members found it inappropriate to friend a current student, and friending patients was not acceptable for 70% of respondents, with major differences found in age groups; it was acceptable to friend patients to 31% of trainees and 62% of students compared to only 5% of faculty.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
In Jafarey et al's study, friending patients was acceptable to 31% of trainees, 62% of students, and 5% of faculty.
“In Jafarey et al’s [117] study, almost half of faculty members found it inappropriate to friend a current student, and friending patients was not acceptable for 70% of respondents, with major differences found in age groups; it was acceptable to friend patients to 31% of trainees and 62% of students compared to only 5% of faculty.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
Among physicians, the majority have legal concerns about communicating with patients through social media.
“Among physicians, the majority have legal concerns about communicating with patients through SM [78,105,117].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
In Jafarey et al's study, friending patients was not acceptable for 70% of respondents.
“In Jafarey et al’s [117] study, almost half of faculty members found it inappropriate to friend a current student, and friending patients was not acceptable for 70% of respondents, with major differences found in age groups; it was acceptable to friend patients to 31% of trainees and 62% of students compared to only 5% of faculty.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
Loosening accountability is a danger to e-professionalism from two points of view: eroding public trust by providing poor quality information on social media and damage to professional image.
“According to some studies in this review, loosening accountability can be seen as a danger on e-professionalism from two points of view, eroding public trust by providing poor quality of information on SM [39,106,117] and damage to professional image [43, 45, 51, 56, 57, 59, 64, 66, 68, 70, 73, 102, 106, 112].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
Some studies have demonstrated generation gap differences in friending patients, with younger age being associated with more openness to being friends with a patient.
“Some studies have demonstrated generation gap differences in friending patients, with younger age being associated with more openness to be friends with a patient [82,117].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [117]
Cites
Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users’ personality and social media use
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & de Zúñiga, H. G. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.09.003 · Cited by 1,915 · see citing works
Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities
Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103 · Cited by 970 · see citing works
Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students
Chretien, K. C. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1387 · Cited by 448 · see citing works
Farnan, J. M., Snyder Sulmasy, L., Worster, B. K., Chaudhry, H. J., Rhyne, J. A., Arora, V. M., for the American College of Physicians Ethics, P. A. H. R. C., the American College of Physicians Council of Associates, & the Federation of State Medical Boards Special Committee on Ethics and Professionalism* (2013) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00100 · Cited by 420 · see citing works
Social Media and Clinical Care: Ethical, Professional, and Social Implications
Chretien, K. C., & Kind, T. (2013) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.112.128017 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Online professionalism and the mirror of social media.
Greysen, S. R., Kind, T., & Chretien, K. C. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1447-1 · Cited by 323 · cited 1× · see citing works
“40 Since respondents in this study opined that Facebook was a good medium to “share interesting cases” and to seek the “rapid” opinion of different “experts” in forums, the possibility of patient-related information being released to un-intended viewers, often in great numbers and at astounding…”
BackgroundThe Patient–Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey
Bosslet, G. T., Torke, A. M., Hickman, S. E., Terry, C. L., & Helft, P. R. (2011) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1761-2 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
American College of Physicians Ethics Manual
(1992) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-117-11-947 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Medical professionalism in the age of online social networking
Guseh, J. S., Brendel, R. W., & Brendel, D. H. (2009) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2009.029231 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Social media policies at US medical schools
Kind, T., Genrich, G., Sodhi, A., & Chretien, K. C. (2010) · Medical Education Online · doi:10.3402/meo.v15i0.5324 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Facebook activity of residents and fellows and its impact on the doctor–patient relationship
Moubarak, G., Guiot, A., Benhamou, Y., Benhamou, A., & Hariri, S. (2011) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2010.036293 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Professionalism in the Digital Age
Mostaghimi, A., & Crotty, B. H. (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-8-201104190-00008 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Protected health information on social networking sites: ethical and legal considerations
Thompson, L. A., Black, E., Duff, W. P., Paradise Black, N., Saliba, H., & Dawson, K. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1590 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
To Friend or Not to Friend? Social Networking and Faculty Perceptions of Online Professionalism
Chretien, K. C., Farnan, J. M., Greysen, S. R., & Kind, T. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182356128 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Informed consent for medical photographs
Cunniff, C., Byrne, J. L. B., Hudgins, L., Moeschler, J. B., Olney, A. H., Pauli, R. M., Seaver, L. H., Stevens, C. A., & Figone, C. (2000) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/00125817-200011000-00010 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Addressing Therapeutic Boundaries in Social Networking
Ginory, A., Sabatier, L. M. M., & Eth, S. (2012) · Psychiatry · doi:10.1521/psyc.2012.75.1.40 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Revisiting Social Network Utilization by Physicians-in-Training
Black, E. W., Thompson, L. A., Duff, W. P., Dawson, K., Saliba, H., & Black, N. M. P. (2010) · Journal of Graduate Medical Education · doi:10.4300/jgme-d-10-00011.1 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Peluchette, J., Karl, K. A., Coustasse, A., & Emmett, D. C. (2012) · Health Care Supervisor · doi:10.1097/hcm.0b013e31826fe252 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
To Friend or Not to Friend. . . .
Knight, M. (2012) · Business Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1080569912438833 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
George, D. R. (2012) · The Journal of Clinical Ethics · doi:10.1086/jce201223409 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vukušić Rukavina, T., Viskić, J., Machala Poplašen, L., Relić, D., Marelić, M., Jokic, D., & Sedak, K. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/25770 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
“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].”
InfluentialViskić, J., Jokić, D., Marelić, M., Machala Poplašen, L., Relić, D., Sedak, K., & Vukušić Rukavina, T. (2021) · Croatian Medical Journal · doi:10.3325/cmj.2021.62.569 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Mani, S. A., Uma, E., John, J., & Nieminen, P. A. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04359-1 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
E-Professionalism in Dental Education
Mani, S. A., John, J., Uma, E., & Nieminen, P. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-0275-6_6-1
- Authors
- Jafarey, A., Shekhani, S., Azam, M.-E., Gill, R., Shirazi, B., Hassan, M., Iqbal, S. P., & Naqvi, R.
- Venue
- Asian Bioethics Review
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 272-289
- ISSN
- 1793-8759 (ISSN-L)
- 1793-9453
- OpenAlex
- W2563549499
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Asian Bioethics Review (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Keywords
- Facebook, medical professionals, patient privacy, professional boundaries, physician-patient relationship, privacy settings, health information disclosure, medical students, medical trainees, medical faculty, Pakistan
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