CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Social Media in Health EducationImpact of Technology on AdolescentsInnovations in Medical Education

Visible Facebook profiles and e-professionalism in undergraduate medical students in India

Open access
Gupta, Setu, Singh, Satendra, Dhaliwal, Upreet·2015·Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
DOI 10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.50PMC PMC4671181
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to assess medical students’ presence on Facebook and the extent of their visible activity, with particular reference to online professionalism. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study including all medical students enrolled in the University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India during the period of the study, which was conducted from 2011 to 2012. After approval by the Institutional Ethical Committee, the full names of all students were obtained from our institution. After creating a fictitious profile, Facebook was searched for students’ profiles, and those found were examined for visible content and unprofessional behaviour. Results: Of 611 students, 477 (78.1%) had detectable Facebook profiles. Out of 477 profiles, date of birth, address, email, phone number, religion, and political views were rarely shared; sexual orientation and relationship status were displayed on approximately one third of the profiles; and an identifiable profile picture (80.3%), field of study (51.6%), and institution (86.2%) were commonly shared . The visible content included friend lists (88.7%), photo albums (36.1%), and associations with diverse groups and pages (97.1%). Five profiles (1.05%) displayed unprofessional content, including one profile photograph depicting alcohol consumption, one association with groups relating to excessive alcohol consumption, two profiles containing sexually explicit language, and one association with a sexist page. Conclusion: Most of our students use Facebook’s privacy settings to hide some content from others. Unprofessional content was rarely visible from a stranger’s profile. However, even when hidden from strangers, unprofessional behaviour is still unprofessional behaviour. As Facebook is an integral part of life, it is important for medical educators and students to understand the implications and importance of e-professionalism. Professionalism curricula should address e-professionalism.

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 · 10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.50

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?

  • Gupta et al's content study of Facebook profiles found a gender difference in favor of male medical students, ranging from 73.5% to 96.4%.

    “Gender difference was established also in Gupta et al’s [62] content study of Facebook profiles (in favor of male medical students, ranging from 73.5% to 96.4%) [62]”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Discussion explicitly says the authors did not attempt to explore gender differences because very few female students were admitted to their institution. The paper did study visible Facebook profiles, but it does not establish a gender difference favoring male students or report the claimed 73.5%–96.4% range as such a difference. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Surveys that captured students' self-report of posted unprofessional behavior reported witnessing the investigated examples with varying frequencies.

    “Surveys that captured students’ self-report of posted unprofessional behavior (eg, evidence of being intoxicated, illegal drug use, posting patient information, sharing clinical images inappropriately, and depictions of an illegal act) reported witnessing the investigated examples with varying frequencies [32,42,43,55,59,62,64,73,114,118].”

    From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Methods describe researchers inspecting publicly visible Facebook profiles, not surveying students or collecting their self-reports. The Results report different counts for visible examples, including alcohol-related content and sexually explicit language, but do not report frequencies for all the examples listed in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Related

Authors
Gupta, S., Singh, S., & Dhaliwal, U.
Affiliations
University of Delhi (IN)
Corresponding author
Dhaliwal, Upreet
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
Publisher
Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute
Published
2015-10-31
Volume
12
Pages
50
ISSN
  • 1738-1339 (ISSN-L)
  • 1975-5937
DOI
10.3352/jeehp.2015.12.50
PMC
PMC4671181
OpenAlex
W1886062012
Cited by
17
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
Facebook, e-professionalism, online professionalism, medical students, social media use, privacy settings, teacher professionalism

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