Abstract
Patients are searching online to find health-related information. The information they find may serve as their only source of information, or it may be complementary to the information they receive from their personal healthcare provider, friends, or family members. Regardless, by seeking information online, they will inevitably encounter misinformation. This can lead to any number of problems including incorrect self-diagnosis, unnecessary angst regarding their established medical condition, or unfounded and exaggerated expectations from treatment options. While misinformation may be present, patients are seeking correct information, and they value expert opinion. If healthcare professionals are not engaged in social media to provide evidence-based information, their void will be filled by personal anecdotes, pseudoscientific approaches, and snake oil salesmen. Even if a healthcare professional is not interested in engaging in social media, they must still be aware of the information their patients are encountering online in order to provide anticipatory guidance in the clinical setting. For those who are interested in participating, there are a variety of ways for healthcare professionals to get more involved. This chapter will discuss why, how, and what healthcare professionals can do to lend their expert voice to the online conversation that is already happening…with or without their consent.
You can’t believe everything you read on the internet.
––Abraham Lincoln
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Summary of the 2017–2018 influenza season, Centers for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season-2017-2018.htm. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
Estimates of influenza vaccination coverage among adults—United States, 2017–18 flu season, Centers for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1718estimates.htm. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A. Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education; 1993.
Gabielkov M, Ramachandran A, Chaintreau A, Legout A. Social clicks: what and who gets read on Twitter? ACM SIGMETRICS/IFIP Performance 2016, June 2016, Antibes Juan-les-Pins, France. 2016. <hal-01281190>.
Norman GR, Monteiro SD, Sherbino J, Ilgen JS, Schmidt HG, Mamede S. The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking. Acad Med. 2017;92(1):23–30.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/philosophy/articles-reports/2018/04/02/most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.
Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(4):539–57.
Venola CL. Social media and health care professionals: benefits, risks, and best practices. P T. 2014;39(7):491–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stukus, D.R. (2019). The Role of Medical Professionals in Social Media. In: Social Media for Medical Professionals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14439-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14439-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14438-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14439-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)