CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 99Innovations in Medical EducationSocial Media in Health EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Exploring digital professionalism

Ellaway, Rachel H., Coral, Janet, Topps, David, Topps, Maureen·2015·Medical Teacher
DOI 10.3109/0142159x.2015.1044956
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The widespread use of digital media (both computing devices and the services they access) has blurred the boundaries between our personal and professional lives. Contemporary students are the last to remember a time before the widespread use of the Internet and they will be the first to practice in a largely e-health environment. This article explores concepts of digital professionalism and their place in contemporary medical education, and proposes a series of principles of digital professionalism to guide teaching, learning and practice in the healthcare professions. Despite the many risks and fears surrounding their use, digital media are not an intrinsic threat to medical professionalism. Professionals should maintain the capacity for deliberate, ethical, and accountable practice when using digital media. The authors describe a digital professionalism framework structured around concepts of proficiency, reputation, and responsibility. Digital professionalism can be integrated into medical education using strategies based on awareness, alignment, assessment, and accountability. These principles of digital professionalism provide a way for medical students and medical practitioners to embrace the positive aspects of digital media use while being mindful and deliberate in its use to avoid or minimize any negative consequences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/0142159x.2015.1044956

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Many healthcare authorities and regulatory bodies worldwide have issued professional standards, guidelines, evidence-based reports, and consensus statements on the professional use of social media.

    “To address these challenges, many healthcare authorities and regulatory bodies worldwide have issued professional standards, guidelines, evidence-based reports, and consensus statements on the professional use of SM (20).”

    From Identifying social media professionalism competencies in Vietnamese medical students: a modified Delphi method (2026) · cites this paper as [20]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ellaway, R. H., Coral, J., Topps, D., & Topps, M.
Affiliations
  • NOSM University (CA)
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
Corresponding author
Ellaway, Rachel H.
ORCID
Venue
Medical Teacher
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-06
Volume
37
Issue
9
Pages
844-849
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
DOI
10.3109/0142159x.2015.1044956
OpenAlex
W2168036391
Cited by
99
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2
FWCI
9.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
digital professionalism, medical professionalism, digital media, medical education, e-health, ethical practice, accountability, digital skills, professional reputation, digital responsibility, medical students
MeSH terms
Professionalism, Awareness, Communication, Education, Medical, Humans, Learning, Physician's Role, Students, Medical, Teaching, Internet, 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