Cited by 206Social Media in Health EducationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyWeb and Library Services

Use of Social Network Sites for Communication Among Health Professionals: Systematic Review

Open access
Chan, Windy SY, Leung, Angela YM·2018·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although much research has been done investigating the roles of social network sites (SNSs) in linking patients and health professionals, there is a lack of information about their uses, benefits, and limitations in connecting health professions only for professional communication. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to examine the utilization of SNSs for communication among health professionals in (1) frontline clinical practice, (2) professional networks, and (3) education and training to identify areas for future health communication research. METHODS: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A systematic search of the literature published in the last 10 years (January 1, 2007, to March 1, 2017) was performed in March 2017, using the following electronic databases: MEDLINE via OvidSP, EMBASE, CINAHL Complete, and InfoSci-Journals. The searches were conducted using the following defined search terms: "social media" OR "social network" OR "social network site" OR "Facebook" OR "Twitter" OR "Linkedin" OR "Instagram" OR "Weibo" OR "Whatsapp" OR "Telegram" OR "WeChat" AND "health" OR "health profession." RESULTS: Of the 6977 papers retrieved, a total of 33 studies were included in this review. They were exploratory in nature, and the majority used surveys (n=25) and interviews (n=6). All retrieved studies stated that SNSs enhanced effective communication and information sharing. SNSs were used for supporting delivering of clinical services, making referrals, and sharing information. They were beneficial to network building and professional collaboration. SNSs were novel tools to enhance educational interactions among peers, students, instructors, and preceptors. The application of SNSs came with restraints in technical knowledge, concerns on data protection, privacy and liability, issues in professionalism, and data protection. CONCLUSIONS: SNSs provide platforms facilitating efficient communication, interactions, and connections among health professionals in frontline clinical practice, professional networks, education, and training with limitations identified as technical knowledge, professionalism, and risks of data protection. The evolving use of SNSs necessitates robust research to explore the full potential and the relative effectiveness of SNSs in professional communication.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.8382

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • Social networking sites can facilitate efficient communication, interactions, and connections among health professionals in education and training.

    “SNSs can facilitate efficient communication, interactions, and connections among health professionals in education and training, with limitations identified as technical knowledge, professionalism, and risks of data protection [10].”
  • Limitations of social networking sites for health professionals in education and training include technical knowledge, professionalism, and risks of data protection.

    “SNSs can facilitate efficient communication, interactions, and connections among health professionals in education and training, with limitations identified as technical knowledge, professionalism, and risks of data protection [10].”
  • Recent research shows that, for some health care professionals, the risk of using social media is still a concern for the exposure of one's private life.

    “Recent research shows that, for some HCPs, the risk of using SM is still a concern for the exposure of one’s private life [10,39,148].”
  • In Chan et al's systematic review, identified positive predictors of use of social networking sites for professional purposes were younger age (20-39 years), fewer years of professional experience (0-10 years), and lower rank, such as residents.

    “Similar results can be found in Chan et al’s [10] systematic review where identified positive predictors of use of SNSs for professional purposes were younger age (20-39 years), fewer years of professional experience (0-10 years), and lower rank, such as residents.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [17]National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 2017 2017-10-30 Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort Cross-Sectional Studies https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort 20821851
  2. [53]American Medical Association AMA 2018-03-16 Professionalism in the use of social media https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/public/about-ama/councils/Council%20Reports/council-on-ethics-and-judicial-affairs/i10-ceja-professionalism-use-social-media.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chan, W. S., & Leung, A. Y.
Affiliations
Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2018-03-28
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
e117
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2794528468
Cited by
206
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 7
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PolyU Institutional Research Archive (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PolyU Institutional Research Archive (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
Keywords
social network sites, healthcare workers, professional communication, health communication, clinical practice, professional networks, medical education, information sharing, referral, data protection, privacy, professionalism, social media
MeSH terms
Professionalism, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Health Communication, 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