Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Professional Ethics for Digital Age Psychiatry: Boundaries, Privacy, and Communication

  • Psychiatry in the Digital Age (J Shore, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Internet and social media use continue to expand rapidly. Many patients and psychiatrists are bringing digital technologies into the treatment process, but relatively little attention has been paid to the ethical challenges in doing this. This review presents ethical guidelines for psychiatry in the digital age.

Recent Findings

Surveys demonstrate that patients are eager to make digital technologies part of their treatment. Substantial numbers search for professional and personal information about their therapists. Attitudes among psychiatrists about using digital technologies with patients range from dread to enthusiastic adoption.

Summary

Digital technologies create four major ethical challenges for psychiatry: managing clinical boundaries; maintaining privacy and confidentiality; establishing realistic expectations regarding digital communications; and upholding professional ideals. Traditional ethical expectations are valid for the evolving digital arena, but guidance must be adapted for actual application in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Technology Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet. January 12, 2017. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/. (Accessed April 2, 2017).

  2. Internet World Stats. Internet usage statistics: the internet big picture. Available at http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. (Accessed April 2, 2017).

  3. Internet Live Stats. Internet Users. Available at http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/. (Accessed April 2, 2017).

  4. Facebook Investor Relations. Facebook Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2016 Results Available at https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2017/facebook-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Full-Year-2016-Results/default.aspx. (Accessed April 2, 2017).

  5. • Inkster B, Stillwell D, Kosinski M, Jones B. A decade into Facebook: where is psychiatry in the digital age? Lancet Psychiatry 2016:3:1087-90. This article makes a strong case for why clinicians and researchers should engage with social media.

  6. American Medical Association. Preamble in Code of Medical Ethics. American Medical Association, 2017. (page 1).

  7. •• Gutheil TG, Gabbard GO. The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: theoretical and risk management dimensions. Am J Psychiatry 1993:150:188-96. This is the classical discussion of clinical boundaries.

  8. Talkspace. Available at https://www.talkspace.com/. Accessed June 19, 2017.

  9. Ginroy A, Sabatier LM, Eth S. Addressing therapeutic boundaries in social networking. Psychiatry. 2012;75:40–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. •• Zur, O. (2015). To accept or not to accept? How to respond when clients send “Friend Request” to their psychotherapists or counselors on social networking sites. Available at http://www.zurinstitute.com/socialnetworking.html. (Accessed April 10, 2017) Full of practical information.

  11. Veritilo P, Billick SB. Psychiatric illness and Facebook: a case report. Psychiatr Q. 2012;83:385–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gabbard GO, Kassaw KA, Perez-Garcia G. Professional boundaries in the era of the Internet. Acad Psychiatry. 2011;35:168–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Petrow S. When psychiatrists are on Facebook, their patients can get a case of TMI. Washington Post August 25, 2014. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/when-psychiatrists-are-on-facebook-their-patients-can-get-a-case-of-tmi/2014/08/25/ed31e522-110a-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html?utm_term=.e13fcc210f53.,(Accessed April 11, 2017).

  14. Editorial. You have a new friend request. Lancet 2017:389:983.

  15. Tech Insider. Facebook recommended a psychiatrist’s patients friend each other—and there’s no clear explanation. Available at http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-people-you-may-know-2016-8. Accessed May 24, 2017.

  16. •• Tan SSL, Goonawardene N. Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19(1):e9. [URL: http://www.jmir.org/2017/1/e9/] [doi: 10.2196/jmir:5729] [PMID: 28104579] This literature review of 18 empirical studies (from 2000 to 2015) found that Internet health information seeking can improve the patient-physician relationship, especially when using a collaborative, transparent approach.

  17. •• Eichenberg C, Sawyer A. Do patients look up their therapists online? An exploratory study among patients in psychotherapy. J Med Internet Res Mental Health 2016; 3(2):e22. This Internet-based survey explored the frequency and primary reasons why patients had obtained online information about their therapists.

  18. Gorrindo T, Brendel D. Introduction: avatars, cybercoaches, and search engines: internet technology’s value in modern psychiatry. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2010;18:77–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Clinton BK, Silverman BC, Brendel DH. Patient-targeted googling: the ethics of searching online for patient information. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2010;18:103–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lancet Psychiatry. Back of the net. Lancet Psychiatry 2016;3:907. Retrieved 4/15/2017 from http://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ethics.

  21. Sabin JE, Skimming K. A framework of ethics for telepsychiatry practice. International Review of Psychiatry. doi:10.3109/09540261.2015.1094034.

  22. •• American Psychiatric Association. (2016). Opinion A.1.h. in Opinions of the Ethics Committee on the principles of medical ethics: with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry: 2017 Edition. Retrieved 4/15/2017 from http://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ethics. This opinion of the APA Ethics Committee directly addresses the question on whether it is ethical for a psychiatrist to Google a patient, and under what conditions might it be appropriate.

  23. Lewkowicz K. Surprise! Millenials love email just as much as everybody else. Litmus, April 27, 2016. Available at https://litmus.com/blog/surprise-millennials-love-email-just-as-much-as-everybody-else. (Accessed April 14, 2017).

  24. Haun JN, Patel NR, Lind JD, Antinori N. Large-scale survey findings inform patients’ experiences in using secure messaging to engage in patient-provider communication and self-care management: a quantitative assessment. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(12):e282.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Moldawsky RJ, Shah PV. E-mails in a psychiatric practice: why patients send them and how psychiatrists respond. Permanente J. 2016;20(1):65–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. American Medical Association. Opinion 2.3.1. in Code of medical ethics. American Medical Association, 2017. (pages 41–42).

  27. •• Zur O. I love these emails, or do I? The use of emails in psychotherapy and counseling. 2015. Available at: http://www.zurinstitute.com/email_in_therapy.html (Accessed April 24, 2017) Full of practical information.

  28. CMS. Eligible professional Medicaid incentive program: modified stage 2—objectives and measures for 2017 (Objective 9 of 10). Available at https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/MedicaidEPStage2_Obj9.pdf (Accessed April 14, 2017).

  29. Suler J. The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 2004;7(3):321–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kitsis EA, Milan FB, Cohen HW, Myers D, et al. Who’s misbehaving? Perceptions of unprofessional social media use by medical students and faculty. BMC Medical Education Published online 2016 Feb 18;16:67. doi: 10.1186/s12909-016-0572-x.

  31. Dawkins R, King WD, Boateng B, Nichols M, et al. Pediatric residents’ perceptions of potential professionalism violations on social media: a US national survey. JMIR Med Educ 2017;3(1):e2.

  32. Robotham D, Satkunanathan S, Doughty L, Wykes T. Do we still have a digital divide in mental health? A five-year survey follow-up. J Med Internet Res 2016 Nov; 18(11): e309. Published online 2016 Nov 22. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6511.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    James E. Sabin

  2. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    James E. Sabin

  3. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, 401 Park Drive (Suite 401 East), Boston, MA, 02215-3301, USA

    James E. Sabin

  4. Atrius Health and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Jonathan Clark Harland

Authors
  1. James E. Sabin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Clark Harland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James E. Sabin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Psychiatry in the Digital Age

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sabin, J.E., Harland, J.C. Professional Ethics for Digital Age Psychiatry: Boundaries, Privacy, and Communication. Curr Psychiatry Rep 19, 55 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-017-0815-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-017-0815-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation