Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 1168–1174 | Cite as

The Patient–Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey

  • Gabriel T. Bosslet
  • Alexia M. Torke
  • Susan E. Hickman
  • Colin L. Terry
  • Paul R. Helft
Original Research

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVE

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.

DESIGN/SETTING

A random, stratified mail survey was sent to 1004 MS, 1004 RP, and 1004 PP between February and May 2010.

MEASUREMENTS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

KEY WORDS

doctor–patient relations computer communication networks professionalism Internet bioethics 

Supplementary material

11606_2011_1761_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (501 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 500 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Lenhart A (2009) Adults and Social Network Websites. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults-and-Social-Network-Websites.aspx?r=1. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  2. 2.
    Facebook (2010) Press Room-Statistics. http://www.Facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  3. 3.
    Hitwise (2010) Top 20 sites and engines. http://www.hitwise.com/us/datacenter/main/dashboard-10133.html. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  4. 4.
    Lenhart A (2009) The Democratization of Online Social Networks: A look at the change in demographics of social network users over time. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://pewinternet.org/Presentations/2009/41--The-Democratization-of-Online-Social-Networks.aspx. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  5. 5.
    Hawn C. Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online posting of unprofessional content by medical students. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1309–1315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lacson SM, Bradley C, Arkfeld DG. Facebook medicine. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(1):211.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jain SH. Practicing medicine in the age of Facebook. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(7):649–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moubarak G, Guiot A, Benhamou Y, Benhamou A, Hariri S. Facebook activity of residents and fellows and its impact on the doctor-patient relationship. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(2):101–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guseh JS 2nd, Brendel RW, Brendel DH. Medical professionalism in the age of online social networking. J Med Ethics. 2009;35(9):584–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Medical Association (2010) Professionalism in the use of social media. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/meeting/professionalism-social-media.shtml. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  12. 12.
    Kellerman SE, Herold J. Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(1):61–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, Black EW, Boyer J, Coutts J, Black NP. The intersection of online social networking with medical professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(7):954–957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fletcher D. Facebook. Time. 2010;175(21):32–38.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foreman J (2010) You, your doctor, and the internet. Los Angeles Times, April 26, 2010. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/26/health/la-he-Facebook-20100426. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  16. 16.
    Cohen E (2009) Should you "friend" your doctor on Facebook? http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/03/friending.your.doctor/index.html. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  17. 17.
    Grover M. Defining the patient-physician relationship in the era of Facebook. Acad Med. 2010;85(8):1262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacDonald J, Sohn S, Ellis P. Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: a dilemma for young doctors. Med Educ. 2010;44(8):805–813.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project (2010) Online News Survey Dataset. http://pewinternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2010/January-2010--Online-News.aspx. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  20. 20.
    Gorrindo T, Groves JE. Web searching for information about physicians. JAMA. 2008;300(2):213–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greysen SR, Kind T, Chretien KC. Online professionalism and the mirror of social media. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(11):1227–1229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Farnan JM, Paro JA, Higa J, Edelson J, Arora VM. The YouTube generation: implications for medical professionalism. Perspect Biol Med. 2008;51(4):517–524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lagu T, Kaufman EJ, Asch DA, Armstrong K. Content of weblogs written by health professionals. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1642–1646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chretien KC, Azar J, Kind T. Physicians on Twitter. JAMA. 2011;305(6):566–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosenblum D. What anyone can know - The privacy risks of social networking sites. Ieee Security & Privacy. 2007;5(3):40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project (2008) Digital Footprints. http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2008/Digital-Footprints.aspx. Accessed May 3, 2011.
  27. 27.
    Martin BC. Don’t survey physicians! Chicago: American Medical Association; 1974.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gorrindo T, Gorrindo PC, Groves JE. Intersection of online social networking with medical professionalism: can medicine police the Facebook boom? J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(12):2155. author reply 2156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel T. Bosslet
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  • Alexia M. Torke
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Susan E. Hickman
    • 1
    • 7
  • Colin L. Terry
    • 8
  • Paul R. Helft
    • 1
    • 3
    • 6
  1. 1.Charles Warren Fairbanks Center for Medical EthicsIndiana University HealthIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care, Occupational and Sleep MedicineIndiana University School MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Division of Hematology/OncologyIndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.Division of General Internal Medicine and GeriatricsIndianapolisUSA
  5. 5.IU Center for Aging ResearchRegenstrief Institute, Inc.IndianapolisUSA
  6. 6.Department of MedicineIndiana University School Of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  7. 7.Department of Environments for HealthIndiana University School of NursingIndianapolisUSA
  8. 8.Methodist Research InstituteIndiana University HealthIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations