The Patient–Doctor Relationship and Online Social Networks: Results of a National Survey
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.
KEY WORDSdoctor–patient relations computer communication networks professionalism Internet bioethics
- 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.Facebook (2010) Press Room-Statistics. http://www.Facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics. Accessed May 3, 2011.
- 3.Hitwise (2010) Top 20 sites and engines. http://www.hitwise.com/us/datacenter/main/dashboard-10133.html. Accessed May 3, 2011.
- 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.
- 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.
- 14.Fletcher D. Facebook. Time. 2010;175(21):32–38.Google Scholar
- 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.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.
- 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.
- 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.Martin BC. Don’t survey physicians! Chicago: American Medical Association; 1974.Google Scholar