Facebook Medicine
Open accessAbstract
The practice of medicine has been greatly affected by the advent of the World Wide Web.Patients have access to medical information (some misleading), are able to look up information on their physicians, and can post their own reviews of clinicians.Now the doctor-patient relationship may be forced to evolve further with the increasing popularity of online social networking websites, like Facebook (www.facebook.com)and MySpace (www.myspace.com).These websites have been described as "online spaces that allow individuals to present themselves, articulate their social networks, and establish or maintain connections with others." 1 Membership is free and it allows members to post a profile, search for old friends, and make new contacts.Recently a rheumatology patient contacted us via Facebook, requesting to be added as a friend.Facebook currently has 70 million users worldwide, and on the website it describes itself as a "social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them."This raises questions of propriety: should patients and doctors be connected via these online networks?There are a number of articles concerned with the practice of online medicine, and the general consensus is that the Internet allows greater accessibility and efficiency to meet our patients' needs.Yet a review of PubMed did not reveal any discussion of how online social networks are to be incorporated into a physician's practice.Given the massive popularity of these websites, we expect that ours is not the first case of a patient seeking to establish an online connection with his/her physician.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 1 · Cited by 9
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Ellison N, Steinfeld C, Lampe C. Spatially bounded online social networks and social capital: The role of Facebook. Proceedings, Annual Conference of the International Communication Association; June 19-23, 2006; Dresden, Germany.
- Authors
- LACSON, S. M., BRADLEY, C., & ARKFELD, D. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- BRADLEY, CHRYSTAL
- ORCID
- ARKFELD, DANIEL G.
- Venue
- The Journal of Rheumatology
- Publisher
- The Journal of Rheumatology
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 211-211
- ISSN
- 0315-162X (ISSN-L)
- 1499-2752
- OpenAlex
- W4237650012
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2018: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Rheumatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- Facebook, online social networking, physician-patient relationship, physician-patient communication, MySpace, professional boundaries, rheumatology practice
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Information Services, Physician-Patient Relations, Rheumatology, Internet
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