Cited by 115Social Media in Health EducationInnovations in Medical EducationEducational Technology in Learning

The use of Facebook in medical education – A literature review

Open access
Pander, Tanja, Pinilla, Severin, Dimitriadis, Konstantinos, Fischer, Martin R.·2014·German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Abstract

Background: The vogue of social media has changed interpersonal communication as well as learning and teaching opportunities in medical education. The most popular social media tool is Facebook. Its features provide potentially useful support for the education of medical students but it also means that some new challenges will have to be faced. Aims: This review aimed to find out how Facebook has been integrated into medical education. A systematical review of the current literature and grade of evidence is provided, research gaps are identified, links to prior reviews are drawn and implications for the future are discussed. Method: The authors searched six databases. Inclusion criteria were defined and the authors independently reviewed the search results. The key information of the articles included was methodically abstracted and coded, synthesized and discussed in the categories study design, study participants’phase of medical education and study content. Results: 16 articles met all inclusion criteria. 45-96% of health care professionals in all phases of their medical education have a Facebook profile. Most studies focused on Facebook and digital professionalism. Unprofessional behavior and privacy violations occurred in 0.02% to 16%. In terms of learning and teaching environment, Facebook is well accepted by medical students. It is used to prepare for exams, share online material, discuss clinical cases, organize face-to-face sessions and exchange information on clerkships. A few educational materials to teach Facebook professionalism were positively evaluated. There seems to be no conclusive evidence as to whether medical students benefit from Facebook as a learning environment on higher competence levels. Discussion: Facebook influences a myriad of aspects of health care professionals, particularly at undergraduate and graduate level in medical education. Despite an increasing number of interventions, there is a lack of conclusive evidence in terms of its educational effectiveness. Furthermore, we suggest that digital professionalism be integrated in established and emerging competency-based catalogues.

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

DataCite · 10.3205/zma000925

Cites

31 of 31 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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [33]Bürgi H Rindlisbacher B Bader C Bloch R Bosman F Gasser C Gerke W Humair JP Im Hof V Kaiser H Lefebvre D Schläppi P Sottas B Spinas GA Stock AF Swiss Catalogue of Learning Objectives for Undergraduate Medical Training 2008 Genf Joint Conference of Swiss Medical Faculties Available from: http://sclo.smifk.ch/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pander, T., Pinilla, S., Dimitriadis, K., & Fischer, M. R.
Affiliations
LMU Klinikum (DE)
Venue
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
Publisher
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
Published
2014
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
Doc33-Doc33
OpenAlex
W184207538
Cited by
115
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 2
FWCI
13.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • German Medical Science (German Research Foundation) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • German Medical Science (German Research Foundation)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
Keywords
Facebook, social media in medical education, digital professionalism, medical students, online learning, professional conduct, privacy violations, competency-based curriculum, undergraduate medical education, graduate medical education
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Clinical Competence, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Curriculum, Education, Medical, Germany, Humans, Students, Medical, 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