Dataset Information

Dangers and Benefits of Social Media on E-Professionalism of Health Care Professionals: Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As we are witnessing the evolution of social media (SM) use worldwide among the general population, the popularity of SM has also been embraced by health care professionals (HCPs). In the context of SM evolution and exponential growth of users, this scoping review summarizes recent findings of the e-professionalism of HCPs.

Objective

The purpose of this scoping review is to characterize the recent original peer-reviewed research studies published between November 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, on e-professionalism of HCPs; to assess the quality of the methodologies and approaches used; to explore the impact of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs; to recognize the benefits and dangers of SM; and to provide insights to guide future research in this area.

Methods

A search of the literature published from November 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, was performed in January 2021 using 3 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus). The searches were conducted using the following defined search terms: "professionalism" AND "social media" OR "social networks" OR "Internet" OR "Facebook" OR "Twitter" OR "Instagram" OR "TikTok." The search strategy was limited to studies published in English. This scoping review follows the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

Results

Of the 1632 retrieved papers, a total of 88 studies were finally included in this review. Overall, the quality of the studies was satisfactory. Participants in the reviewed studies were from diverse health care professions. Medical health professionals were involved in about three-quarters of the studies. Three key benefits of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs were identified: (1) professional networking and collaboration, (2) professional education and training, and (3) patient education and health promotion. For the selected studies, there were five recognized dangers of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs: (1) loosening accountability, (2) compromising confidentiality, (3) blurred professional boundaries, (4) depiction of unprofessional behavior, and (5) legal issues and disciplinary consequences. This scoping review also recognizes recommendations for changes in educational curricula regarding e-professionalism as opportunities for improvement and barriers that influence HCPs use of SM in the context of e-professionalism.

Conclusions

Findings in the reviewed studies indicate the existence of both benefits and dangers of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs. Even though there are some barriers recognized, this review has highlighted existing recommendations for including e-professionalism in the educational curricula of HCPs. Based on all evidence provided, this review provided new insights and guides for future research on this area. There is a clear need for robust research to investigate new emerging SM platforms, the efficiency of guidelines and educational interventions, and the specifics of each profession regarding their SM potential and use.

SUBMITTER: Vukusic Rukavina T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8663533 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The rising popularity of social media, since their inception around 20 years ago, has been echoed in the growth of health-related research using data derived from them. This has created a demand for literature reviews to synthesise this emerging evidence base and inform future activities. Existing reviews tend to be narrow in scope, with limited consideration of the different types of data, analytical methods and ethical issues involved. There has also been a tendency for research to be siloed within different academic communities (eg, computer science, public health), hindering knowledge translation. To address these limitations, we will undertake a comprehensive scoping review, to systematically capture the broad corpus of published, health-related research based on social media data. Here, we present the review protocol and the pilot analyses used to inform it. METHODS:A version of Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework will be followed: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying the relevant literature; (3) selecting the studies; (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. To inform the search strategy, we developed an inclusive list of keyword combinations related to social media, health and relevant methodologies. The frequency and variability of terms were charted over time and cross referenced with significant events, such as the advent of Twitter. Five leading health, informatics, business and cross-disciplinary databases will be searched: PubMed, Scopus, Association of Computer Machinery, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, alongside the Google search engine. There will be no restriction by date. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The review focuses on published research in the public domain therefore no ethics approval is required. The completed review will be submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary open access journal, and conferences on public health and digital research.

Project description:BackgroundHealth researchers are increasingly using social media in a professional capacity, and the applications of social media for health researchers are vast. However, there is currently no published evidence synthesis of the ways in which health researchers use social media professionally, and uncertainty remains as to how best to harness its potential.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to explore how social media is used by health researchers professionally, as reported in the literature.MethodsThe scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al was used. Comprehensive searches based on the concepts of health research and social media were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases, with no limitations applied. Articles were screened at the title and abstract level and at full text by two reviewers. One reviewer extracted data that were analyzed descriptively to map the available evidence.ResultsA total of 8359 articles were screened at the title and abstract level, of which 719 were also assessed at full text for eligibility. The 414 articles identified for inclusion were published in 278 different journals. Studies originated from 31 different countries, with the most prevalent being the United States (52.7% [218/414]). The health discipline of the first authors varied, with medicine (33.3% [138/414]) being the most common. A third of the articles covered health generally, with 61 health-specific topics. Papers used a range of social media platforms (mean 1.33 [SD 0.7]). A quarter of the articles screened reported on social media use for participant recruitment (25.1% [104/414]), followed by practical ways to use social media (15.5% [64/414]), and use of social media for content analysis research (13.3% [55/414]). Articles were categorized as celebratory (ie, opportunities for engagement, 72.2% [299/414]), contingent (ie, opportunities and possible limitations, 22.7% [94/414]) and concerned (ie, potentially harmful, 5.1% [21/414]).ConclusionsHealth researchers are increasingly publishing on their use of social media for a range of professional purposes. Although most of the sentiment around the use of social media in health research was celebratory, the uses of social media varied widely. Future research is needed to support health researchers to optimize their social media use.

Project description:BackgroundIncreased digital health and social care services are generally considered to improve people's access to services. However, not everyone can equally access and use these resources. Health and social care professionals should assess clients' suitability for digital solutions, but to succeed, they need information about what to evaluate and how.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to identify evaluation tools that professionals can use when assessing clients' suitability for digital health and social care. We summarized the dimensions and the practical usefulness of the instruments.MethodsThe MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Web of Science, and ASSIA databases were searched in February 2023 following the Joanna Briggs Institute's Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Studies were included if they focused on health and social care clients and professionals, examined clients' suitability for using digital health or social care, and applied related assessment methods in the direct client work of professionals. Studies focusing primarily on instruments intended for research use without clear applicability to professionals' practical contexts were excluded. Details of the eligible studies were extracted, and qualitative content analysis according to the research objectives was performed.ResultsA total of 19 articles introducing 12 different assessment instruments intended for the health care context were included in the review. No instruments were found for evaluating the suitability for digital social care. The instruments contained 60 dimensions of the client's suitability for digital health, which reflected four perspectives: (1) skill-based suitability, (2) suitability based on general ability to maintain health, (3) suitability based on attitude and experience, and (4) suitability based on practical matters. The described practical usefulness of the instruments included professionals' possibility to (1) identify clients most in need of education and support, (2) direct and recommend the right clients for the right digital services, (3) ensure that clients can use digital health, (4) improve effectiveness and maximize the provision of digital health, (5) develop and redesign services, and (6) empower clients.ConclusionsBased on the diverse assessment instruments available and the dimensions they measure, there seems to be no comprehensive evaluation tool for assessing clients' prerequisites to use digital solutions. It is important to further develop comprehensive screening tools applicable to professionals' busy work (both in health and social care) with defined threshold values for suitability.

Project description:BackgroundAs the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care increases, it will become increasingly crucial to involve health care professionals (HCPs) in developing, validating, and implementing AI-enabled technologies. However, because of a lack of AI literacy, most HCPs are not adequately prepared for this revolution. This is a significant barrier to adopting and implementing AI that will affect patients. In addition, the limited existing AI education programs face barriers to development and implementation at various levels of medical education.ObjectiveWith a view to informing future AI education programs for HCPs, this scoping review aims to provide an overview of the types of current or past AI education programs that pertains to the programs' curricular content, modes of delivery, critical implementation factors for education delivery, and outcomes used to assess the programs' effectiveness.MethodsAfter the creation of a search strategy and keyword searches, a 2-stage screening process was conducted by 2 independent reviewers to determine study eligibility. When consensus was not reached, the conflict was resolved by consulting a third reviewer. This process consisted of a title and abstract scan and a full-text review. The articles were included if they discussed an actual training program or educational intervention, or a potential training program or educational intervention and the desired content to be covered, focused on AI, and were designed or intended for HCPs (at any stage of their career).ResultsOf the 10,094 unique citations scanned, 41 (0.41%) studies relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. Among the 41 included studies, 10 (24%) described 13 unique programs and 31 (76%) discussed recommended curricular content. The curricular content of the unique programs ranged from AI use, AI interpretation, and cultivating skills to explain results derived from AI algorithms. The curricular topics were categorized into three main domains: cognitive, psychomotor, and affective.ConclusionsThis review provides an overview of the current landscape of AI in medical education and highlights the skills and competencies required by HCPs to effectively use AI in enhancing the quality of care and optimizing patient outcomes. Future education efforts should focus on the development of regulatory strategies, a multidisciplinary approach to curriculum redesign, a competency-based curriculum, and patient-clinician interaction.

Project description:BackgroundIn the last decade, social media has emerged as a newer platform for knowledge dissemination, information exchange, and interpersonal communication for health care professionals (HCPs). However, the underlying behaviors of HCPs and the ethical use of social media for productivity enhancement and a sustainable health care system remain ambiguous.ObjectiveThis study seeks to understand the factors that relate to the frequency use of social media in the health care discipline. It also aims to explore the underlying online behaviors of HCPs, which include the exchange of medical information with peers, interpersonal communication, and productivity enhancement in their daily practice.MethodsThis study adopted the quantitative method in collecting and analyzing data. A survey instrument based on the behavioral and technology acceptance theories was developed for this purpose. The survey was distributed via social media platforms to 973 participants that included physicians, pharmacists, and allied HCPs working in the United Arab Emirates. The responses from 203 completed questionnaires (response rate 20.3%) were analyzed.ResultsOf 203 respondents, 133 HCPs used WhatsApp (65.5%); therefore, WhatsApp had the highest number of users compared to Facebook and YouTube, with 101 users out of 203 (49.7%). Overall, 109 of 203 (53.6%) HCPs used social media platforms for the exchange of peer medical information and 108 of 203 (53.2%) used social media several times during the day to improve their interpersonal communication with colleagues. However, only 71 of 203 (34.9%) utilized social media to enhance their productivity in general. The structural model equation showed that behavioral intention (beta=.47; P<.001), habit (beta=.26; P=.001), attitude (beta=.20; P=.002), and perceived usefulness (beta=.12; P=.09) were positively and significantly related to frequency of use. The model explained a rate of 45% variance in the frequency of use and a rate of 17% variance in the social media intention of use.ConclusionsThe research highlights the significant factors that relate to the adoption of social media platforms in health care practice. Based on the findings of this study, the use of online platforms facilitates the exchange of medical information among peers and enhances the share of experiences that support HCP's learning and development. Moreover, social media platforms foster a higher level of communication among practitioners and might improve daily productivity. Future researchers might explore other variables such as training and external factors. For instance, they may draw on areas related to guidelines and policies. From this standpoint, the health care discipline can benefit from highly interactive platforms and adopt them for development, collaboration, and better health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundIn order to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs), the World Health Organization recommends educating people on sexual health. With more than 2 billion active users worldwide, online social media potentially represent powerful channels for health promotion, including sexual health.ObjectiveTo review the scientific literature on the use of online social media for sexual health promotion.DesignA search was conducted of scientific and medical databases, and grey literature was also included. The selected publications were classified according to their study designs, sexual health promotion main subject, target audience age, and social media use.ResultsFifty-one publications were included; 4 publications presenting randomized intervention studies, 39 non-randomized intervention studies, and 8 observational studies. In 29 publications (56.9%), the main subject of the sexual health promotion was 'general' or to increase STI testing. Thirty publications (58.8%) specifically focused on youth or young people (aged 11-29 years). Fourteen publications that used social media either as unique channels for sexual health promotion interventions or as a tool supporting the sexual health promotion reported an effect on behavior (27%), and two of those studies found a reduction in the number of positive chlamydia and gonorrhea cases linked to social media intervention. Forty-four publications (86.3%) involved Facebook in some way.ConclusionsAlthough billions of people worldwide actively use social media, we identified only 51 publications on the use of social media for promoting sexual health. About a quarter of the publications have identified promising results, and the evidence for positive effects of social media interventions for promoting sexual health is increasing. There is a need for more studies that explicitly discuss their theoretical framework, and that have strong research designs, in order to further increase the evidence base of the field.

Project description:BackgroundAs social media are increasingly used worldwide, more and more scientists are relying on them for their health-related projects. However, social media features, methodologies, and ethical issues are unclear so far because, to our knowledge, there has been no overview of this relatively young field of research.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to provide an evidence map of the different uses of social media for health research purposes, their fields of application, and their analysis methods.MethodsWe followed the scoping review methodologies developed by Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute. After developing search strategies based on keywords (eg, social media, health research), comprehensive searches were conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. We limited the search strategies to documents written in English and published between January 1, 2005, and April 9, 2020. After removing duplicates, articles were screened at the title and abstract level and at the full text level by two independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted data, which were descriptively analyzed to map the available evidence.ResultsAfter screening 1237 titles and abstracts and 407 full texts, 268 unique papers were included, dating from 2009 to 2020 with an average annual growth rate of 32.71% for the 2009-2019 period. Studies mainly came from the Americas (173/268, 64.6%, including 151 from the United States). Articles used machine learning or data mining techniques (60/268) to analyze the data, discussed opportunities and limitations of the use of social media for research (59/268), assessed the feasibility of recruitment strategies (45/268), or discussed ethical issues (16/268). Communicable (eg, influenza, 40/268) and then chronic (eg, cancer, 24/268) diseases were the two main areas of interest.ConclusionsSince their early days, social media have been recognized as resources with high potential for health research purposes, yet the field is still suffering from strong heterogeneity in the methodologies used, which prevents the research from being compared and generalized. For the field to be fully recognized as a valid, complementary approach to more traditional health research study designs, there is now a need for more guidance by types of applications of social media for health research, both from a methodological and an ethical perspective.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040671.

Project description:IntroductionBetween 38 and 59 percent of women presenting to health care professionals have experienced intimate partner violence. Consequently, multiple intimate partner violence identification or screening programs within health care settings have been developed; however, substantial variations in program content and interpretation of program effectiveness has resulted in conflicting practice guidelines. The purpose of our scoping review is to broadly identify and synthesize the available literature evaluating intimate partner violence identification programs within health care settings to identify key areas for potential evidence-based recommendations and to focus research priorities in the field.Materials and methodsWe conducted a search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and psycINFO. We used broad eligibility criteria to identify studies that evaluated intimate partner violence identification programs in health care settings. We completed all screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We used descriptive statistics to summarize all data.ResultsWe identified 59 eligible studies evaluating intimate partner violence identification programs within health care settings. The most commonly reported outcome themes were IPV disclosure (69%, n = 35), number of patients screened (39%, n = 20), HCP opinions towards screening (37%, n = 19), and patient opinions towards screening (29%, n = 15). The majority of studies (36 studies (70.6%)) reported positive program evaluation results.DiscussionThe majority of studies reported positive program evaluation results. This may suggest that many different intimate partner violence identification programs are beneficial for identifying victims of abuse, however, it remains unknown as to whether identification programs prevent future episodes of abuse. Additionally, the substantial heterogeneity of the intervention characteristics, study methodology, and outcome measures assessed limits the ability to make clear recommendations as to the optimal method(s) of screening.