CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Social Media in Health EducationImpact of Technology on AdolescentsInnovations in Medical Education

Revisiting Social Network Utilization by Physicians-in-Training

Open access
Black, Erik W., Thompson, Lindsay A., Duff, W. Patrick, Dawson, Kara, Saliba, Heidi, Black, Nicole M. Paradise·2010·Journal of Graduate Medical Education
DOI 10.4300/jgme-d-10-00011.1PMC PMC2930318
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective: To measure and compare the frequency and content of online social networking among 2 cohorts of medical students and residents (2007 and 2009). Methods: Using the online social networking application Facebook, we evaluated social networking profiles for 2 cohorts of medical students (n = 528) and residents (n = 712) at the University of Florida in Gainesville. Objective measures included existence of a profile, whether it was made private, and whether any personally identifiable information was included. Subjective outcomes included photographic content, affiliated social groups, and personal information not generally disclosed in a doctor-patient encounter. We compared our results to our previously published and reported data from 2007. Results: Social networking continues to be common amongst physicians-in-training, with 39.8% of residents and 69.5% of medical students maintaining Facebook accounts. Residents' participation significantly increased ( P < .01) when compared to the 2007 data. Individuals in the 2009 cohort had significantly more “friends” ( P < .01), belonged to more “groups” ( P < .01), and were more likely to limit public access to their profiles through the use of privacy settings ( P < .01) than the individuals in the 2007 cohort. Discussion: Online social networking application use by physicians-in-training remains common. While most now limit access to their profiles, personal profiles that still allow public access exhibited a few instances of unprofessional behavior. Concerns remain related to the discovery of content in violation of patient privacy and the expansive and impersonal networks of online “friends” who may view profiles.

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 · 10.4300/jgme-d-10-00011.1

Cites

15 of 15 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?

  • Workday comments are common on Facebook.

    “whereas, workday comments are common on Facebook [12,18-20,22].”

    From Effects of Mock Facebook Workday Comments on Public Perception of Professional Credibility: A Field Study in Canada (2019) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says Facebook provides an outlet for work-related dialogue among medical students and residents. But the Results (page unavailable) say most wall content on the public profiles examined was birthday wishes and family commentary; the paper does not establish that workday comments are common on Facebook generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Confidentiality breaches are rare.

    “Although confidentiality breeches are more serious and have been a focus of attention for regulators and educators, they are rare [12,18]”

    From Effects of Mock Facebook Workday Comments on Public Perception of Professional Credibility: A Field Study in Canada (2019) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results report identifiable patient photographs in 10 of 95 public profiles, describing them as potential privacy violations. That supports the idea that such postings were limited in this sample, but the paper does not establish that confirmed confidentiality breaches are rare generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Profile comments were modeled after actual status updates from previous studies to authentically portray workday comments.

    “Profile comments (ie, status updates) were modeled after actual status updates from previous studies of health professionals’ personal use of Facebook to authentically portray workday comments as they may be encountered online [18,20-22].”

    From Effects of Mock Facebook Workday Comments on Public Perception of Professional Credibility: A Field Study in Canada (2019) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results describe actual postings on physicians-in-training’s public Facebook profile walls, including descriptions of unprofessional behavior. They do not provide the wording of status updates or identify the postings as workday comments, so this source supports the use of real profile content as a reference but not those more specific details. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Dolan PL. Social media behavior could threaten your reputation, job prospects. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/10/12/ bil21012.htm. Accessed April 19, 2010.
  2. Dolan PL. Social networking etiquette: making virtual acquaintances. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/06/02/bisa0602. htm. Accessed April 19, 2010.
  3. Guha S, Tang K, Francis P. NOYB: privacy in online social networks. Workshop on Online Social Networks. Available at: http://conferences. sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2008/workshops/wosn/papers/p49.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Black, E. W., Thompson, L. A., Duff, W. P., Dawson, K., Saliba, H., & Black, N. M. P.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Graduate Medical Education
Publisher
Journal of Graduate Medical Education
Published
2010-06
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
289-293
ISSN
  • 1949-8349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-8357
DOI
10.4300/jgme-d-10-00011.1
PMC
PMC2930318
OpenAlex
W2001532751
Cited by
43
References
15
Citations by year
2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Graduate Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
online social networking, Facebook, physicians in training, medical students, medical residents, privacy settings, patient privacy, professional conduct, social media use, physician-patient relationship

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