Cited by 40Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationCyberloafing and Workplace Behavior

Erosion of Digital Professionalism During Medical Students’ Core Clinical Clerkships

Open access
Mostaghimi, Arash, Olszewski, Aleksandra E, Bell, Sigall K, Roberts, David H, Crotty, Bradley H·2017·JMIR Medical Education

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The increased use of social media, cloud computing, and mobile devices has led to the emergence of guidelines and novel teaching efforts to guide students toward the appropriate use of technology. Despite this, violations of professional conduct are common. OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore professional behaviors specific to appropriate use of technology by looking at changes in third-year medical students' attitudes and behaviors at the beginning and conclusion of their clinical clerkships. METHODS: After formal teaching about digital professionalism, we administered a survey to medical students that described 35 technology-related behaviors and queried students about professionalism of the behavior (on a 5-point Likert scale), observation of others engaging in the behavior (yes or no), as well as personal participation in the behavior (yes or no). Students were resurveyed at the end of the academic year. RESULTS: Over the year, perceptions of what is considered acceptable behavior regarding privacy, data security, communications, and social media boundaries changed, despite formal teaching sessions to reinforce professional behavior. Furthermore, medical students who observed unprofessional behaviors were more likely to participate in such behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Although technology is a useful tool to enhance teaching and learning, our results reflect an erosion of professionalism related to information security that occurred despite medical school and hospital-based teaching sessions to promote digital professionalism. True alteration of trainee behavior will require a cultural shift that includes continual education, better role models, and frequent reminders for faculty, house staff, students, and staff.

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/mededu.6879

Cites

27 of 27 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?

  • One study did not find a positive correlation between educational interventions and the impact on e-professionalism among students.

    “One study did not find a positive correlation between educational interventions and the impact on e-professionalism among students [55].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Discussion (Teaching and Modeling Digital Professionalism; page unavailable) says isolated teaching sessions were not sufficient to sustain students’ perceptions and behaviors, supporting the claim’s general point. But the Methods (Study Design, Participants, and Setting; page unavailable) describe no correlation analysis between educational interventions and e-professionalism outcomes; the correlation assessed was between observing and participating in unprofessional behaviors. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Effectiveness of educational interventions about e-professionalism or impact of existing social media policies has been recognized in this review, since numerous studies explored educational interventions for promoting e-professionalism.

    “Effectiveness of educational interventions about e-professionalism or impact of existing SM policies has been recognized in this review, since numerous studies explored educational interventions for promoting e-professionalism [46,48,52,54,55,60,63,81,89,103].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Methods (Study Design, Participants, and Setting; page unavailable) describe educational sessions on digital professionalism, and the Discussion (Teaching and Modeling Digital Professionalism; page unavailable) interprets the findings as showing that isolated sessions did not sustain professional perceptions and behaviors. The paper discusses written policies but does not evaluate the impact of an existing social media policy. It is one study, not evidence on its own that numerous studies explored such interventions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Medical students who observed unprofessional behaviors were more likely to participate in such behaviors.

    “Furthermore, medical students who observed unprofessional behaviors were more likely to participate in such behaviors [55], and the phenomenon of “distancing” was described among nursing students, while the existence of unwise posting on SNSs was widely acknowledged, students tended to attribute such behavior to others [43].”
  • Isolated sessions on professionalism are not sufficient to sustain perceptions and behaviors of professionalism.

    “Findings of this study suggest that isolated sessions on professionalism are not sufficient to sustain perceptions and behaviors of professionalism.”
  • Results reflect an erosion of professionalism related to information security that occurred despite medical school and hospital-based teaching sessions to promote digital professionalism.

    “Their results reflect an erosion of professionalism related to information security that occurred despite medical school and hospital-based teaching sessions to promote digital professionalism.”

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
Mostaghimi, A., Olszewski, A. E., Bell, S. K., Roberts, D. H., & Crotty, B. H.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Seattle Children's Hospital (US)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
Corresponding author
Mostaghimi, Arash
Venue
JMIR Medical Education
Published
2017-05-03
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
e9
ISSN
2369-3762 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2611830038
Cited by
40
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
4.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Arnold P. Gold Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Cyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
Keywords
digital professionalism, medical students, clinical rotations, social media use, information security, privacy, professional conduct, medical education, role models

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