Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2011 Oct;26(10):1168-74.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1761-2. Epub 2011 Jun 25.

The patient-doctor relationship and online social networks: results of a national survey

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The patient-doctor relationship and online social networks: results of a national survey

Gabriel T Bosslet et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Oct.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Stratified OSN users by age.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of users who had received friend requests by specialty.*The following specialties had no users receive patient or family friend requests: anesthesiology, emergency medicine, surgical subspecialties, radiology, dermatology, pathology.

Comment in

References

    1. Lenhart A (2009) Adults and Social Network Websites. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults-and-Social-Network-Websites.a.... Accessed May 3, 2011.
    1. Facebook (2010) Press Room-Statistics. http://www.Facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics. Accessed May 3, 2011.
    1. Hitwise (2010) Top 20 sites and engines. http://www.hitwise.com/us/datacenter/main/dashboard-10133.html. Accessed May 3, 2011.
    1. 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-Onl.... Accessed May 3, 2011.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.361. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types