Business of Oncology

Original Contribution

Social Media Use Among Physicians and Trainees: Results of a National Medical Oncology Physician Survey By Rachel Adilman, Yanchini Rajmohan, Edward Brooks, MD, Gloria Roldan Urgoiti, MD, Caroline Chung, MD, MSc, Nazik Hammad, MD, MSc, Martina Trinkaus, MD, MT, Madiha Naseem, and Christine Simmons, MD, MSc

Abstract Purpose: Cancer management requires coordinated care from many health care providers, and its complexity requires physicians be up to date on current research. Web-based social media support physician collaboration and information sharing, but the extent to which physicians use social media for these purposes remains unknown. The complex field of oncology will benefit from increased use of online social media to enhance physician communication, education, and mentorship. To facilitate this, patterns of social media use among oncologists must be better understood.

Methods: A nine-item survey investigating physician social media use, designed using online survey software, was distributed via e-mail to 680 oncology physicians and physicians in training in Canada. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Introduction It has now been a decade since the conception of social media, defined as Internet-based resources and applications that permit the “creation and exchange of user-generated content.”1-3 Although much research on the topic of social media in health care has taken place, most studies have focused primarily on security and ethical concerns related to patient-specific information sharing on the Internet and on the need for physicians to maintain professionalism online.2,4-6 In essence, recent studies have focused largely on the drawbacks or challenges of social media use in health care rather than on the opportunities for increased physician collaboration and knowledge translation that social media present.5 Little work has been done to assess social media use among physicians. A handful of studies have reported on use of wellknown sites, such as Twitter, by physicians to share medical knowledge.3,7,8 A review of the top Web sites aimed at physicians in the United States found that many physicians do indeed turn to social networking sites for advice on challenging patient cases and to discuss medical politics and research.9 A 2012 survey study by McGowan et al1 reported that oncologists may be more likely to be motivated to use social media out of a sense of “personal innovativeness”1(p5) compared with physicians in primary care, who seemed to have other driving influCopyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Results: A total of 207 responses (30%) were received; 72% of respondents reported using social media. Social media use was highest, at 93%, in respondents age 25 to 34 years and lowest, at 39%, in those age 45 to 54 years. This demonstrates a significant gap in social media use between younger users and mid- to late-career users. The main barrier to use was lack of free time. Conclusion: The identified gap in social media use between age cohorts may have negative implications for communication in oncology. Despite advancements in social media and efforts to integrate social media into medical education, most oncologists and trainees use social media rarely, which, along with the agerelated gap in use, may have consequences for collaboration and education in oncology. Investigations to further understand barriers to social media use should be undertaken to enhance physician collaboration and knowledge sharing through social media.

ences behind social media use. The authors reported that these differences in motivation to use social media may stem from the rapidly advancing nature of the field of oncology and the need for oncologists to be “on the cutting edge of science and clinical practice.”1(p6) Oncology is highly evidence based, and new discoveries with practice-changing results take place frequently in this field.10 Indeed, cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada11 and second leading cause of death in the United States.12 According to the Cancer Facts and Figures 2014 report by the American Cancer Society, ⬎ 1.6 million new patient cases of cancer were predicted to be diagnosed in the United States in 2014.12 The treatment of such a complex disease requires ongoing research and “extensive refinement and evaluation over time.”10(p13) These data emphasize the need for oncology physicians to be up to date on current research and advancements and suggest a role for social media platforms as a means of disseminating knowledge rapidly to these clinicians. Although Web sites aimed at physicians seem to arise almost daily, and despite oncology research being at the forefront of efforts to develop learning systems for oncology physicians to rapidly access new information,10 little is known about how often physicians and physicians in training use social media. Furthermore, the goals and desires of physicians and physicians

jop.ascopubs.org

1

Downloaded from jop.ascopubs.org on March 22, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Journal of Oncology Practice Publish Ahead of Print, published on October 6, 2015 as doi:10.1200/JOP.2015.006429

British Columbia Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Vancouver, British Columbia; University of Waterloo, Waterloo; Princess Margaret Hospital; St Michael’s Hospital; University of Toronto, Toronto; Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario; and University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Adilman et al

Methods This was a prospective cohort survey study of Canadian physicians and physicians in training. Because this study aimed to assess social media use within oncology specifically, the survey was aimed at medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists, hematologists, and oncology trainees (ie, students, residents, and fellows). Participants were contacted by coinvestigators through e-mail addresses gathered from publicly available directories. It is known that online surveys of physicians typically have a low response rate of approximately 30%.1,13 As such, a sample size of ⬎ 600 individuals was prespecified for this study to ensure a 30% response rate, which would allow for estimation of the proportion of respondents who use social media with a 95% CI precision of ⫾ 7%. To assess any generational differences in social media use, respondents were divided into age categories: 18 to 24, 25 to 34, 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and ⱖ 55 years, representing the needs of trainees, fellows, and early-, mid-, and late-career faculty, respectively. The survey was designed using a survey-generating Web site (SurveyMonkey, Palo Alto, CA) and was distributed securely via weekly e-mail messages to 680 individuals from July 2013 through September 2013. The survey consisted of nine questions with multiple-choice answers. Two demographic questions, asking respondents to identify their profession and age group, were followed by seven questions related to frequency, purpose, and platform of social media use. Surveyed individuals were asked to identify which social networking sites they used and whether they used these sites for personal or social use, business or professional use, or both. Respondents were then questioned about their reasons or goals for using social media for professional development. Options included: “to network with colleagues or professionals,” “to interact with patients,” “leadership development,” “to share research,” and “other.” Finally, the survey asked respondents what type of information they would like to receive from a medically geared social media 2

JOURNAL

OF

site and to describe their hesitations, if any, around joining such a site. All responses were received anonymously and stored in a password-protected account on the host Web site used to generate the survey. Results were analyzed by two authors (R.A. and C.S.) and are reported using descriptive statistics.

Results Of 680 surveys sent, 207 were completed (response rate, 30.4%). Of the individuals who responded, 51% were medical oncologists, 29% were trainees, 6% were radiation oncologists, 6% were medical students, 6% identified themselves as other, and 1% were surgical oncologists or hematologists (Appendix Table A1, online only). Social media were used by 72% of our survey respondents (95% CI, 66% to 78%; Table 1). Results were cross tabulated by age, which revealed a significant difference in social media use by age group, with 89% of trainees, 93% of fellows, and 72% of early-career oncologists reporting social media use, compared with 39% of mid-career oncologists (P ⬍ .05). There was less difference between these groups and late-career oncologists, 59% of whom reported social media use. Social media use by late-career oncologists was significantly different from social media use by fellows (age 25 to 34 years; P ⬍ .05); however, it was not statistically significant when compared with other cohorts. Facebook and Twitter were the social networking sites used by the majority of respondents for personal or social purposes, with 86% of Facebook users and 65% of Twitter users frequenting these sites for personal or social use only. Ninety-three percent of OncologyEducation users and 89% of both American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Connection and Women in Cancer/All in Cancer users indicated using these sites exclusively for business or professional purposes. Few respondents reported using any of the social media platforms presented in the survey for both personal and professional purposes. Google⫹ was noted as the site most commonly used in this manner, with 38% of Google⫹ users frequenting the site for both personal and professional purposes. Twitter was the site used second most frequently for both purposes. When asked how often users visited the sites, 27% of Facebook users, 16% of Google⫹ users, and 6% of Twitter users reported using the respective site multiple times per day. Midcareer oncologists (age 45 to 54 years) had the lowest frequency of use, with a majority of respondents in this cohort reporting use rarely or never. Late-career oncologists were as likely as or more likely than those age 25 to 34 years to frequent social media sites multiple times per week. When asked, “When you use social media for professional development, what are your goals?” 55% percent of respondents answered “to network with colleagues or professionals,” 17% answered “to share research,” and 13% answered “leadership development.” Answers to this question were cross tabulated by age (Table 2), which revealed a significant age-related difference in the proportion of respondents who would like to network with colleagues or other professionals through social

ONCOLOGY PRACTICE

Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Downloaded from jop.ascopubs.org on March 22, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

in training in using such sites are poorly understood. Although many organizations and agencies develop Web-based materials and discussion forums for physicians, there is little explanation of needs assessments carried out by such organizations and few published data to support what type of information physicians wish to receive via social media platforms. In addition, little is known about the barriers to using social media for knowledge dissemination and collaboration among physicians. As the comprehensiveness and pervasiveness of Internet-based social media continues to increase, there is little doubt that social media will affect the health care sector at an escalating rate, and it is likely that physicians and trainees will increasingly adopt these technologies for professional uses. Our study aimed to address the current lack of knowledge surrounding the nature of Web-based social media use by oncology physicians and physicians in training, to identify gaps in social media use between age-defined physician generations, and to perform a needs assessment by identifying what physicians seek through social media and areas for improvement.

Social Media Use Among Physicians and Trainees

Table 1. Do You Use Social Media? No. of Participants (%) Age (years) 18 to 24 (n ⴝ 9)

25 to 34 (n ⴝ 69)

35 to 44 (n ⴝ 64)

45 to 54 (n ⴝ 36)

> 55 (n ⴝ 27)

Yes

8 (89)

64 (93)

46 (72)

14 (39)

16 (59)

No

1 (11)

5 (7)

18 (28)

22 (61)

11 (41)

Question Do you use social media?

Which social networking sites do you use? 0 (0)

3 (4)

9 (14)

8 (22)

8 (30)

8 (89)

62 (90)

33 (52)

9 (25)

7 (26)

Google⫹

2 (22)

15 (22)

11 (17)

6 (17)

11 (41)

LinkedIn

3 (33)

9 (13)

23 (36)

4 (11)

8 (30)

OncEd.com

1 (11)

6 (9)

18 (28)

11 (31)

7 (26)

Twitter

2 (22)

25 (36)

11 (17)

5 (14)

3 (11)

WinC/AlinC

3 (33)

2 (3)

13 (20)

5 (14)

3 (11)

Other

1 (11)

4 (6)

3 (5)

3 (8)

0 (0)

Abbreviations: AlinC, All in Cancer; WinC, Women in Cancer.

media (age 25 to 34 v 45 to 54 years; P ⬍ .05). In each of the younger cohorts (students, fellows, and early-career oncologists), ⬎ 53% of individuals reported a desire for professional networking, compared with 36% of individuals in the midcareer cohort. A total of 191 individuals answered the question, “What type of information would you like to receive through a medically geared social media site?” (Table 2); 53% said they would like links to journal articles, 52% wanted to receive information about upcoming conferences or courses, and 51% wanted to receive updates on current oncology research. Regarding a medically related social networking site, 40% wanted to receive information about cancer treatment op-

tions or pathways of care, and 27% indicated a desire for a discussion forum. When respondents were questioned regarding barriers to social media use and their hesitations about joining a medically related social media site, a majority (59%) answered, “I don’t have enough time”; 22% preferred more traditional ways of accessing medically related news, and 20% cited privacy or security concerns. Responses to this question were cross tabulated by age, which revealed a significant age-related difference in the proportion of respondents with no hesitations around joining a medically geared social media site (Table 3); 39% of respondents age 25 to 34 years had no hesitations around joining, compared with 12% of those age 45 to 54 years (P ⬍ .05).

Table 2. When You Use Social Media for Professional Development, What Are Your Goals? No. of Participants (%) Age (years) 18 to 24 (n ⴝ 9)

25 to 34 (n ⴝ 69)

35 to 44 (n ⴝ 64)

45 to 54 (n ⴝ 36)

> 55 (n ⴝ 27)

To network with colleagues and professionals

5 (56)

45 (65)

34 (53)

13 (36)

15 (56)

To interact with patients

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (2)

1 (3)

1 (4)

Leadership skills development

2 (22)

8 (12)

8 (13)

4 (11)

5 (19)

To share research

4 (44)

11 (16)

12 (19)

5 (14)

3 (11)

Other

2 (22)

25 (36)

28 (44)

22 (61)

11 (41)

Question Why do you use social media?

What type of information do you seek or desire from medically geared social media sites? Updates on research in oncology

7 (78)

29 (42)

35 (55)

19 (53)

7 (26)

Updates on research in other medical fields

6 (67)

38 (55)

11 (17)

3 (8)

3 (11)

Links to journal articles

6 (67)

47 (68)

30 (47)

11 (31)

8 (30) 8 (30)

Information about upcoming conferences and courses

6 (67)

36 (52)

39 (61)

11 (31)

Discussion forum

4 (44)

12 (17)

20 (31)

7 (19)

9 (33)

Information about treatment options and care pathways

7 (78)

31 (45)

20 (31)

11 (31)

6 (22)

Leadership and mentorship info or opportunities

5 (56)

34 (49)

20 (31)

8 (22)

4 (15)

Other

0 (0)

9 (6)

9 (14)

13 (36)

9 (33)

Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

jop.ascopubs.org

3

Downloaded from jop.ascopubs.org on March 22, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

ASCO Facebook

Adilman et al

Table 3. What Are Your Hesitations Around Joining a Medically Geared Social Media Site?* No. of Participants (%) Age (years) Total (N ⴝ 138)

18 to 24 (n ⴝ 4)

25 to 34 (n ⴝ 46)

35 to 44 (n ⴝ 43)

45 to 54 (n ⴝ 26)

> 55 (n ⴝ 19)

82 (59)

2 (50)

21 (46)

25 (58)

20 (77)

14 (74)

I am concerned about privacy or security

27 (20)

1 (25)

6 (13)

10 (23)

4 (15)

6 (32)

I prefer more traditional ways of accessing medically related news

30 (22)

1 (25)

4 (9)

13 (30)

4 (15)

8 (42)

I do not wish to interact with colleagues or professionals in an online setting

15 (11)

1 (25)

5 (11)

7 (16)

1 (4)

1 (5)

Not applicable (no hesitations)

37 (27)

1 (25)

18 (39)

12 (28)

3 (12)

3 (16)

Other (please specify)†

19 (14)

0 (0)

3 (7)

8 (19)

5 (19)

3 (16)

* Participants instructed to check all that apply (total respondents, N ⫽ 138; total responses, N ⫽ 210). † Answers included: nonspecific (n ⫽ 10), concerned about getting too many unwanted e-mails (n ⫽ 3), already receive enough information through traditional sources (n ⫽ 3), concerned about legitimacy or possible abuse or misuse (n ⫽ 2), and prefer interacting with colleagues in the real world (n ⫽ 1).

Late-career oncologists were most concerned about privacy and security and were also the responders who most preferred to receive medically related news in more traditional ways.

Discussion Despite the ability of social media to enhance collaboration and knowledge dissemination among health care providers, our cohort survey study identified an overall low use of social media among respondents and significant generational differences in patterns of use. Respondents age 45 to 54 years reported the lowest social media use. This is in keeping with other studies8,14 describing younger age as being a predictor of more frequent Internet-based social networking. Our study also found that mid-career physicians (age 45 to 54 years) had statistically significantly more hesitations around joining medically geared social media sites for professional purposes, compared with those age 25 to 34 years. Although these results are exploratory and require further validation with larger cohort studies, few studies have previously reported age-related differences in social media use among physicians, and none, to our knowledge, have discussed the negative implications of this gap with regard to physician communication, mentorship, and knowledge sharing among generations of physicians. The consequences of this divide for the field of oncology are poorly understood at present; however, steps should be taken to prevent the widening of this gap to ensure this disparity in social media use between age cohorts remains minimal. Interestingly, our study found the gap in social media use between trainees and early-career oncologists and late-career oncologists (those age ⬎ 54 years) to be less significant as compared with the gap between this younger cohort and mid-career oncologists (age 45 to 54 years). Respondents age ⬎ 55 years frequented many social media sites multiple times per week, which suggests that this older generation of so-called digital immigrants,5 despite their privacy concerns identified in this study, may be striving to close the technologic gap by adopting social media habits similar to those of the younger so-called digital natives.5 However, this unexpected finding requires further validation. 4

JOURNAL

OF

Our study provides insight into oncology physicians’ social media desires by investigating which resources physicians and physicians in training seek in a medically geared Web site. Our survey revealed that ⬎ 50% of respondents would like a medically related social media site to provide updates on current research in oncology, links to journal articles, and information about upcoming conferences and courses. Studies from ASCO have demonstrated the value of the ability of social media to update and educate physicians and permit knowledge dissemination.7,15 A 2013 ASCO study7 reported on Twitter use by physicians at the 2010 and 2011 ASCO Annual Meetings and found that Twitter use increased significantly from 2010 to 2011. Another analysis, presented at the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting, reported 138,081 cancer-related Twitter posts overall during 2014, with ⬎ 1,000 tweets posted daily during the 2014 ASCO Annual Meeting.16 These studies, among others,2,3,7,15 have reported that Twitter seems to be a useful medium through which physicians can stay up to date on medical conference highlights and subsequently disseminate this knowledge to colleagues in an essentially instantaneous fashion. These behaviors are consistent with the social media goals that physicians reported in our study. It has also been reported that even passively following Twitter accounts gives physicians access to educational resources and clinical information,3 meaning physicians who may not want to create their own Twitter account (eg, because of privacy concerns) can still reap the informative benefits of the site. A 2011 study of ⬎ 4,000 US physicians reported that 65% of physicians used social media for professional purposes, with their dominant motive being educational gains, and 90% used social media for personal purposes.17 Our study similarly investigated this metric and found that a majority of respondents used each social media site for either personal or professional purposes, but rarely for both. We found that 38% percent of Google⫹ users, 20% of Twitter users, and 13% of Facebook users frequented these sites for both personal and professional purposes, whereas a majority (Google⫹, 53%; Twitter, 65%; and Facebook, 86%) of users visited these Web sites for personal or social purposes only. This may reflect the widely dis-

ONCOLOGY PRACTICE

Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Downloaded from jop.ascopubs.org on March 22, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Option I don’t have enough time

Social Media Use Among Physicians and Trainees

Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

unfair assumption that age reflects career stage. To counter this, we did cross tabulate the career stages and faculty presented in our survey by age and are quite confident that the generational groupings are appropriate. Finally, because this study was conducted via an online survey rather than a paper-based postal survey, respondents may represent a subpopulation of individuals who already prefer using Web-based technologies and may be more inclined to use social media, compared with individuals who do not use e-mail and were, by default, excluded from the study. In conclusion, our cohort survey study revealed that physicians and physicians in training who participate in Web-based social networking are largely within the younger age cohorts, whereas mid-career oncologists (age 45 to 54 years) are largely absent from the social media scene. Although the ramifications for physician communication, collaboration, and mentorship in oncology posed by this divide remain largely unknown, steps to promote increased physician networking and information sharing through social media should be taken to ensure this gap does not widen. The medical curriculum could benefit from incorporating teachings that emphasize the robust opportunities social media presents for knowledge translation and physician collaboration, while also underlining the importance of maintaining stringent professionalism. To enhance care, oncology centers should consider developing private, secure online forums where physicians can provide multidisciplinary input on clinical conundrums and discuss collaborative research. Online social media use for professional purposes is indeed a relatively new aspect of the oncology field, and the current barriers to oncology physicians’ social media use remain largely unexplored and undocumented. It is hoped that with further research into understanding patterns of use and limitations, medical professionals and trainees may increase their use of social media for networking, education, mentorship, and improved patient care. Authors’ Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article at jop.ascopubs.org.

Author Contributions Conception and design: Rachel Adilman, Yanchini Rajmohan, Christine Simmons Collection and assembly of data: All authors Data analysis and interpretation: Rachel Adilman, Christine Simmons Manuscript writing: All authors Final approval of manuscript: All authors Corresponding author: Christine Simmons, MD, MSc, British Columbia Cancer Agency Vancouver Centre, Medical Oncology, 4th Floor, 600 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, Canada V5Z 4E6; e-mail: christine. [email protected].

DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2015.006429; published online ahead of print at jop.ascopubs.org on October 6, 2015.

jop.ascopubs.org

5

Downloaded from jop.ascopubs.org on March 22, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

cussed need for physicians to maintain separate personal and professional spheres while using online social media.2,3,15,17,18 The Canadian Medical Association itself states that “social media pose a challenge for physicians (and other professionals) in terms of separating one’s personal and professional lives.”18(p2) It has also been stated that “separation of identities online is operationally impossible,”4(p581) because the comprehensiveness of the Web can result in searches that rapidly connect personal and professional content.2,3 This need to maintain professionalism online is especially critical for medical trainees, who are typically quite technologically savvy but only just beginning to establish their professionalism and understand its importance in the medical sphere.3 Private social networking communities for physicians may help circumvent this “online identity crisis”4(p582) by allowing physicians to communicate and express themselves freely and securely. Privacy and professionalism, however, are not the only issues physicians should be concerned about when it comes to online networking. Gaps in social networking use between younger, technology-savvy physicians or physicians in training and older generations of physicians, for whom social media is a new, slightly disorienting phenomenon, may result in critical gaps in communication, collaboration, and mentorship between these demographics. An ASCO Connection blogger stated, “The more oncologists who tweet, the more we will learn from each other,”19(p1) which suggests that a failure to connect online could mean missing out on the sharing of key medical information. Furthermore, as junior medical professionals seek mentors through online networking sites, the identified social networking age gap will become increasingly evident and potentially quite hindering, as trainees struggle to connect with mentors who are largely absent from the social media sphere. Overall, it seems that despite continued advancements in social media technologies and the vast amount of opportunities to network and obtain information via online platforms, a majority of Canadian oncology physicians and trainees are not making use of these opportunities. Our survey revealed the most common reason for this underuse of social media was a significant lack of available time. We have identified some limitations in our study. The low response rate of 30%, although typical for online physician surveys,13 suggests that the results may not accurately represent the social media habits of all oncology physicians and physicians in training in Canada. We recognize that our sample size is small, and encourage future researchers to further explore this topic and validate our results with a larger cohort. Next, the high percentage of medical oncologist respondents and the concomitantly low fraction of respondents from other specialties may mean these results are more telling of social media habits in the aforementioned demographic rather than other oncology specialties. This may have resulted, in part, from the fact that the study principal investigator (C.S.) is a medical oncologist, meaning her medical oncology colleagues may have been more inclined to respond to the survey compared with others, potentially introducing a slight bias. Another limitation is that we chose to group survey respondents by age, with the perhaps

Adilman et al

References 1. McGowan BS, Wasko M, Vartabedian BS, et al: Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and meaningful use of social media by physicians to share medical information. J Med Internet Res 14:e117, 2012 2. Rethlefsen M, Segovis C: Medicine in the era of web 2.0: Physicians discover the benefits (and downsides) of social networking. www.minnesotamedicine.com/PastIssues/Past-Issues-2009/January-2009/Feature-Web-January2009 3. Budd L: Physician tweet thyself: A guide for integrating social media into medical practice. B C Med J 55:38-40, 2013 4. DeCamp M, Koenig TW, Chisolm MS: Social media and physicians’ online identity crisis. JAMA 310:581-582, 2013

6. Wiener L, Crum C, Grady C, et al: To friend or not to friend: The use of social media in clinical oncology. J Oncol Pract 8:103-106, 2012 7. Chaudhry A, Glodé M, Gillman M, et al: Trends in Twitter use by physicians at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, 2010 and 2011.” J Oncol Pract 8:173-178, 2012 8. Cooper CP, Gelb CA, Rim SH, et al: Physicians who use social media and other Internet-based communication technologies. J Am Med Inform Assoc 19:960964, 2012 9. Fogelson NS, Rubin ZA, Ault KA, et al: Beyond likes and tweets: An in-depth look at the physician social media landscape.” Clin Obstet Gynecol 56:495-508, 2013

6

JOURNAL

OF

ONCOLOGY PRACTICE

Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Downloaded from jop.ascopubs.org on March 22, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

5. Gholami-Kordkheili F, Wild V, Strech D: The impact of social media on medical professionalism: A systematic qualitative review of challenges and opportunities. J Med Internet Res 15:e184, 2013

10. Goss TF, Picard EH, Tarab A: Recognizing value in oncology innovation. www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/flash/phrma_innovation_oncology.pdf 11. Government of Canada, Canadian Cancer Society: Canadian cancer statistics 2014. www.cancer.ca/⬃/media/cancer.ca/CW/cancer%20information/cancer% 20101/Canadian%20cancer%20statistics/Canadian-Cancer-Statistics-2014--EN.pdf 12. American Cancer Society: Cancer facts and figures 2014. www.cancer.org/ acs/groups/content/@research/documents/webcontent/acspc-042151.pdf 13. Martins Y, Lederman RI, Lowenstein CL, et al: Increasing response rates from physicians in oncology research: A structured literature review and data from a recent physician survey. Br J Cancer 106:1021-1026, 2012 14. Black EW, Thompson LA, Duff WP, et al: Revisiting social network utilization by physicians-in-training. J Grad Med Educ 2:289-293, 2010 15. Dizon DS, Graham D, Thompson MA, et al: Practical guidance: The use of social media in oncology practice. J Oncol Pract 8:E114-E124, 2012 16. Reid BB, Rodriguez KN, Thompson MA, et al: Cancer-specific Twitter conversations among physicians in 2014. J Clin Oncol 33:XXXX, 2015 (suppl; abstr e17500) 17. Modahl M, Tompsett L, Moorhead T: Doctors, patients and social media. www.quantiamd.com/q-qcp/doctorspatientsocialmedia.pdf 18. Canadian Medical Association: CMA policy: Social media and Canadian physicians: Issues and rules of engagement. http://policybase.cma.ca/dbtw-wpd/ Policypdf/PD12-03.pdf 19. Fisch M: Putting Twitter to use among oncologists: Shared note-taking at national meetings and other stuff. http://connection.asco.org/commentary/ putting-twitter-use-among-oncologists-shared-note-taking-national-meetingsand-other

Social Media Use Among Physicians and Trainees

AUTHORS’ DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Social Media Use Among Physicians and Trainees: Results of a National Medical Oncology Physician Survey The following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I ⫽ Immediate Family Member, Inst ⫽ My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO’s conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or jop.ascopubs.org/site/misc/ifc.xhtml. Nazik Hammad Other Relationship: Women in Cancer/All in Cancer

Yanchini Rajmohan Other Relationship: Women in Cancer/All in Cancer

Martina Trinkaus Other Relationship: Women in Cancer/All in Cancer

Edward Brooks No relationship to disclose

Madiha Naseem Other Relationship: Women in Cancer/All in Cancer

Gloria Roldan Urgoiti No relationship to disclose

Christine Simmons Other Relationship: Women in Cancer/All in Cancer

Caroline Chung Research Funding: Pfizer (research support for clinical trial)

Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

jop.ascopubs.org

Downloaded from jop.ascopubs.org on March 22, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Rachel Adilman Other Relationship: Women in Cancer/All in Cancer

Adilman et al

Appendix

Table A1. What Is Your Profession? Option

No. of Participants (%)

Medical oncologist

105 (51)

Surgical oncologist

1 (0.5)

Radiation oncologist

13 (6)

Hematologist

1 (0.5)

Trainee

60 (29) 12 (6)

Other (please specify)*

13 (6)

* Answers included: internal medicine resident, medical oncology research student, hematologist-oncologist, and palliative care physician.

JOURNAL

OF

ONCOLOGY PRACTICE

Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Downloaded from jop.ascopubs.org on March 22, 2016. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Medical student

Social Media Use Among Physicians and Trainees: Results of a National Medical Oncology Physician Survey.

Cancer management requires coordinated care from many health care providers, and its complexity requires physicians be up to date on current research...
1KB Sizes 1 Downloads 13 Views