Cited by 67Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Online professionalism and Facebook – Falling through the generation gap

Open access
Osman, Ahmed, Wardle, Andrew, Caesar, Richard·2012·Medical Teacher

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Facebook is the most popular social networking site (SNS) worldwide. The growing popularity of SNSs brings 'e-professionalism' to the forefront. AIMS: To assess Facebook use, publicly accessible material and awareness of privacy guidelines and online professionalism by students, foundation year doctors (FYDs) and senior staff grades (SSGs). METHODS: It was an ethical risk to access publicly available information online as many users do not appreciate the lack of privacy involved, therefore a cross-sectional survey was undertaken. Participants included 42 students, 20 FYDs and 20 SSGs from the Severn Deanery (UK). RESULTS: All 42 students and 20 FYDs had Facebook compared with 6 (30%) SSGs. Of these, 17 students (41%), 15 FYDs (75%) and 3 SSGs (50%) had public 'info pages'. 37 students (88%) reported colleagues behaving unprofessionally online with 16 FYDs (80%) but no SSGs. 32 students (76%) felt their professionalism was threatened online, alongside 18 FYDs (90%) and 2 SSGs (33%). Only 11 students (26%), 10 trainees (50%) and no SSGs were aware of guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals lack awareness of their professional vulnerability online. They are not careful in restricting access to their posted information and are not mindful that the principles of professionalism apply to SNSs.

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 · 10.3109/0142159x.2012.668624

Cites

12 of 12 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?

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
Osman, A., Wardle, A., & Caesar, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Royal College of Ophthalmologists (GB)
Corresponding author
Osman, Ahmed
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2012-04-11
Volume
34
Issue
8
Pages
e549-e556
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W2119431126
Cited by
67
References
12
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4
FWCI
9.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
online professionalism, Facebook, social networking sites, medical students, foundation doctors, privacy awareness, professional vulnerability, intergenerational differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Confidentiality, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Medical Staff, Students, Medical, Intergenerational Relations, Professional Role, Young Adult, 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