Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: a dilemma for young doctors
Privacy, professionalism and Facebook: a dilemma for young doctors
1365-2923/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=2d16fd6dd08600b22b3f7040f57234b7629e2324)
Medical Education 2010: 44: 805–813
Objectives This study aimed to examine the nature and extent of use of the social networking service Facebook by young medical graduates, and their utilisation of privacy options.
Methods We carried out a cross-sectional survey of the use of Facebook by recent medical graduates, accessing material potentially available to a wider public. Data were then categorised and analysed. Survey subjects were 338 doctors who had graduated from the University of Otago in 2006 and 2007 and were registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand. Main outcome measures were Facebook membership, utilisation of privacy options, and the nature and extent of the material revealed.
Results A total of 220 (65%) graduates had Facebook accounts; 138 (63%) of these had activated their privacy options, restricting their information to ‘Friends’. Of the remaining 82 accounts that were more publicly available, 30 (37%) revealed users’ sexual orientation, 13 (16%) revealed their religious views, 35 (43%) indicated their relationship status, 38 (46%) showed photographs of the users drinking alcohol, eight (10%) showed images of the users intoxicated and 37 (45%) showed photographs of the users engaged in healthy behaviours. A total of 54 (66%) members had used their accounts within the last week, indicating active use.
Conclusions Young doctors are active members of Facebook. A quarter of the doctors in our survey sample did not use the privacy options, rendering the information they revealed readily available to a wider public. This information, although it included some healthy behaviours, also revealed personal information that might cause distress to patients or alter the professional boundary between patient and practitioner, as well as information that could bring the profession into disrepute (e.g. belonging to groups like ‘Perverts united’). Educators and regulators need to consider how best to advise students and doctors on societal changes in the concepts of what is public and what is private.
Comments
Similarities and differences for MDs in New Zealand
Interesting take on the topic in this article from New Zealand. One of the main difference between this and similarly published studies is that medical students in New Zealand typically start at age 18.
Also, I thought it was really interesting that these authors explicitly stated that they did not consider ethical [IRB] approval necessary for their study as they felt this Facebook content was essentially public. Then later, they were advised to get, and received ,'retrospective approval' by their Ethics Committee. I found this particularly eye-opening as I know of a couple researchers in the US who have tried conducting similar (and larger) studies. They were told by IRB they had to secure informed consent in one case and in another case targeting a national study that they had to secure IRB approval from each institution!
Kevin
Public data?
This is public data so why would ethics approval be needed? Yes, the authors should ensure that an individual should not be identifiable but I think they have managed this here.
Not really public data since it was locked in a network, no?
I don't think it actually was, or could be considered, public data. It was data (or a subset of data) specifically limited to those in the Otago network. The reason the authors could access it was because they themselves were also in that network due to their affiliation with the University. Part of it is also an issue of FB privacy settings, which have changed numerous times since then.
At minimum though, I would have expected the authors to have gone to Ethics Committee up front and let it carry out its charge of advocacy for participant protection. It's quite possible Ethics/IRB would have ruled this stud 'exempt' (or similar term), but then at least a protocol would have been followed.
For me the issue isn't really the status of the data or some kind of a priori vs a posteriori approval, it's more the illustration of differences in conducting research in different parts of the world.
Kevin
Who is they?
When you say 'what are they thinking?' do you mean the researchers or the students?
I am sceptical about 'bringing the profession in to disrepute'. I'm more concerned about behaviours which would raise concern about the professional views of students. I've written a post about this myself:
http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-is-more-important-behaving-badly.html
What we do know is that the public and the profession will not tolerate practitioner showing disrespect to patients whether that is online or offline. There is a great discussion about this here:
http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2010/08/blocking-facebook-wont-stop-stupidity.html
Thanks
Anne Marie