The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Online Professionalism Investigations by State Medical Boards: First, Do No Harm
Abstract
Despite recent guidelines promoting online professionalism, consequences for specific violations by physicians have not been explored. In this article, the authors gauged consensus among state medical boards in the United States (response rate, 71%) about the likelihood of investigations for violations of online professionalism by using 10 hypothetical vignettes. High consensus was defined as more than 75% of respondents indicating that investigation was "likely" or "very likely," moderate consensus as 50% to 75% indicating this, and low consensus as fewer than 50% indicating this. Four online vignettes demonstrated high consensus: Citing misleading information about clinical outcomes (81%; 39/48), using patient images without consent (79%; 38/48), misrepresenting credentials (77%; 37/48), and inappropriately contacting patients (77%; 37/48). Three demonstrated moderate consensus for investigation: depicting alcohol intoxication (73%; 35/48), violating patient confidentiality (65%; 31/48), and using discriminatory speech (60%; 29/48). Three demonstrated low consensus: using derogatory speech toward patients (46%; 22/48), showing alcohol use without intoxication (40%; 19/48), and providing clinical narratives without violation of confidentiality (16%; 7/48). Areas of high consensus suggest "online behaviors" that physicians should never engage in, whereas moderate- and low-consensus areas provide useful contextual information about "gray areas." Increased awareness of these specific behaviors may reduce investigations and improve online professionalism for physicians.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Our study found that themes involving patient information, inappropriate communication, and discriminatory speech elicited similar probabilities of anticipated investigation by both EM and SMB directors, compared to published data. 10”
From Perceptions of Unprofessional Social Media Behavior Among Emergency Medicine Physicians (2017) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“compared with SMB directors, EM physicians were less likely to anticipate that themes involving alcohol and disrespectful speech would be investigated. 10”
From Perceptions of Unprofessional Social Media Behavior Among Emergency Medicine Physicians (2017) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“A recent study found that 40% of state medical boards would consider investigating a physician, with similar postings, for breaches of professional conduct [17].”
From Pediatric Residents’ Perceptions of Potential Professionalism Violations on Social Media: A US National Survey (2017) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“They found that themes involving patient information, inappropriate communication, and discriminatory speech elicited similar probabilities of anticipated investigation by both EM and state medical board directors, compared to published data.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [120]
In the citing paper
“However, compared with state medical board directors, EM physicians were less likely to anticipate that themes involving alcohol and disrespectful speech would be investigated.”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [120]
In the citing paper
“Previous research has described associations of specific SM behaviors with the risk of investigation and subsequent disciplinary action by regulatory agencies by state medical boards and reported that online violations of professionalism by physicians were quite common and often led to disciplinary actions [120,165].”
From Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [120]
In the citing paper
“However, a broad review of the health care social media literature reveals that consensus is building around a number of principles that may help guide informed, appropriate professional health care social media use.29 -32”
From Professionalism in a Digital Age: Opportunities and Considerations for Using Social Media in Health Care (2015) · cites this paper as [29]
Citations
Cites
The online disinhibition effect
Suler, J. (2004) · CyberPsychology & Behavior · doi:10.1089/1094931041291295 · Cited by 4,375
Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter
Project of the ABIM Foundation, A. F. (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-136-3-200202050-00012 · Cited by 1,624
Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students
Chretien, K. C. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1387 · Cited by 448
Self-citationThe Intersection of Online Social Networking with Medical Professionalism
Thompson, L. A., Dawson, K., Ferdig, R., Black, E. W., Boyer, J., Coutts, J., & Black, N. P. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0538-8 · Cited by 425
Online professionalism and the mirror of social media.
Greysen, S. R., Kind, T., & Chretien, K. C. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1447-1 · Cited by 323 · cited 1×
“Moreover, the ease of posting usergenerated content online through social media may amplify the consequences of lapses in professionalism (6, 18); increased awareness among physicians about specific examples of online unprofessional conduct explored in these vignettes can contribute to a more robust concept of online…”
BackgroundSelf-citationContent of Weblogs Written by Health Professionals
Lagu, T., Kaufman, E. J., Asch, D. A., & Armstrong, K. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0726-6 · Cited by 255
(2011) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2011.68 · Cited by 236
Self-citationPhysicians Disciplined by a State Medical Board
Morrison, J. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.23.1889 · Cited by 228
Practicing Medicine in the Age of Facebook
Jain, S. H. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp0901277 · Cited by 179
Medical professionalism in the age of online social networking
Guseh, J. S., Brendel, R. W., & Brendel, D. H. (2009) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme.2009.029231 · Cited by 165
Greysen, S. R., Chretien, K. C., Kind, T., Young, A., & Gross, C. P. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.330 · Cited by 158 · cited 1×
“state medical boards have investigated physicians for violations of professionalism online in 1 or more of these categories (12).”
BackgroundSelf-citationShore, R., Halsey, J., Shah, K., Crigger, B.-J., & Douglas, S. P. (2011) · The Journal of Clinical Ethics · doi:10.1086/jce201122208 · Cited by 149
Professionalism in the Digital Age
Mostaghimi, A., & Crotty, B. H. (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-8-201104190-00008 · Cited by 123
Disciplinary action against physicians: Who is likely to get disciplined?
Khaliq, A. A., Dimassi, H. I., Huang, C., Narine, L., & Smego, R. A. (2005) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.051 · Cited by 123
Protected health information on social networking sites: ethical and legal considerations
Thompson, L. A., Black, E., Duff, W. P., Paradise Black, N., Saliba, H., & Dawson, K. (2011) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.1590 · Cited by 114
To Friend or Not to Friend? Social Networking and Faculty Perceptions of Online Professionalism
Chretien, K. C., Farnan, J. M., Greysen, S. R., & Kind, T. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182356128 · Cited by 73
Self-citationPhysician, Monitor Thyself: Professionalism and Accountability in the Use of Social Media
Lagu, T., & Ryan Greysen, S. (2011) · The Journal of Clinical Ethics · doi:10.1086/jce201122213 · Cited by 44
Self-citationPediatric Clerkship Directors’ Social Networking Use and Perceptions of Online Professionalism
Kind, T., Greysen, S. R., & Chretien, K. C. (2012) · Academic Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.acap.2011.12.003 · Cited by 29
Self-citationFarnan, J. M., Higa, J. T., Paro, J. A. M., Reddy, S. T., Humphrey, H. J., & Arora, V. M. (2010) · AJOB Primary Research · doi:10.1080/21507711003697527 · Cited by 13
PHI faux pas: social media and the unauthorized disclosure of PHI.
Herrin, B. S., & Ingram, T. (2012) · PubMed · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Herrin B, 2012, J Med Pract Manage, 27, 275
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vukušić Rukavina, T., Viskić, J., Machala Poplašen, L., Relić, D., Marelić, M., Jokic, D., & Sedak, K. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/25770 · Cited by 199
“Soares et al’s [119] study compared EM trainees’and faculties’ perceptions of unprofessional SM behaviors to those of state medical board directors from a prior published study [120].”
Gagnon, K., & Sabus, C. (2015) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20130227 · Cited by 90
A Digital Ethnography of Medical Students who Use Twitter for Professional Development
Chretien, K. C., Tuck, M. G., Simon, M., Singh, L. O., & Kind, T. (2015) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3345-z · Cited by 84
Self-citationWho’s misbehaving? Perceptions of unprofessional social media use by medical students and faculty
Kitsis, E. A., Milan, F. B., Cohen, H. W., Myers, D., Herron, P., McEvoy, M., Weingarten, J., & Grayson, M. S. (2016) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0572-x · Cited by 82
Online professionalism: A synthetic review
Chretien, K. C., & Tuck, M. G. (2015) · International Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.3109/09540261.2015.1004305 · Cited by 49
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Greysen, S. R., Johnson, D., Kind, T., Chretien, K. C., Gross, C. P., Young, A., & Chaudhry, H. J.
- Affiliations
- Children's National (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2013-01-15
- Volume
- 158
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 124-130
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W1966234047
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 7.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
- Keywords
- online professionalism, state medical boards, physician misconduct, patient confidentiality, discriminatory speech, alcohol consumption, physician-patient communication
- MeSH terms
- Ethics, Professional, Hippocratic Oath, Humans, Physicians, Specialty Boards, United States, Internet, Consensus
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
