The Patient-Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey
ABSTRACT The use of online social networks (OSNs) among physicians and physicians-in-training, the extent of patient-doctor interactions within OSNs, and attitudes among these groups toward use of OSNs is not well described.
To quantify the use of OSNs, patient interactions within OSNs, and attitudes toward OSNs among medical students (MS), resident physicians (RP), and practicing physicians (PP) in the United States.
A random, stratified mail survey was sent to 1004 MS, 1004 RP, and 1004 PP between February and May 2010.
Percentage of respondents reporting OSN use, the nature and frequency of use; percentage of respondents reporting friend requests by patients or patients' family members, frequency of these requests, and whether or not they were accepted; attitudes toward physician use of OSNs and online patient interactions.
The overall response rate was 16.0% (19.8% MS, 14.3% RP, 14.1% PP). 93.5% of MS, 79.4% of RP, and 41.6% of PP reported usage of OSNs. PP were more likely to report having visited the profile of a patient or patient's family member (MS 2.3%, RP 3.9%, PP 15.5%), and were more likely to have received friend requests from patients or their family members (MS 1.2%, RP 7.8%, PP 34.5%). A majority did not think it ethically acceptable to interact with patients within OSNs for either social (68.3%) or patient-care (68.0%) reasons. Almost half of respondents (48.7%) were pessimistic about the potential for OSNs to improve patient-doctor communication, and a majority (79%) expressed concerns about maintaining patient confidentiality.
Personal OSN use among physicians and physicians-in-training mirrors that of the general population. Patient-doctor interactions take place within OSNs, and are more typically initiated by patients than by physicians or physicians-in-training. A majority of respondents view these online interactions as ethically problematic.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Gabriel T Bosslet, May 01, 2015
- SourceAvailable from: Kiek Tates
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "This motive not only refers to cost reduction by using the Internet for healthrelated reasons, but also to improving the quality of health care, for example by the possibility to compare different health care providers on the Internet  . Fourth, the Internet can be used to improve the relationship between the patient and healthcare provider  . By extending the interactivity between the patient and healthcare provider, the relation between them can be improved . "
ABSTRACT: To investigate patients' and health professionals' (a) motives and use of social media for health-related reasons, and (b) barriers and expectations for health-related social media use. We conducted a descriptive online survey among 139 patients and 153 health care professionals in obstetrics and gynecology. In this survey, we asked the respondents about their motives and use of social network sites (SNS: Facebook and Hyves), Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube. Results showed that patients primarily used Twitter (59.9%), especially for increasing knowledge and exchanging advice and Facebook (52.3%), particularly for social support and exchanging advice. Professionals primarily used LinkedIn (70.7%) and Twitter (51.2%), for communication with their colleagues and marketing reasons. Patients' main barriers for social media use were privacy concerns and unreliability of the information. Professionals' main barriers were inefficiency and lack of skills. Both patients and professionals expected future social media use, provided that they can choose their time of social media usage. The results indicate disconcordance in patients' and professionals' motives and use of social media in health care. Future studies on social media use in health care should not disregard participants' underlying motives, barriers and expectations regarding the (non)use of social media.Patient Education and Counseling 07/2013; 92(3). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.020 · 2.60 Impact Factor
- Cancer Cytopathology 10/2011; 119(5):291-2. DOI:10.1002/cncy.20193 · 3.81 Impact Factor
- Academic Emergency Medicine 11/2011; 18(11):1221-2. DOI:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01197.x · 2.20 Impact Factor