ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020
Public Disclosure on Social Media of Identifiable Patient Information by Health Professionals: Content Analysis of Twitter Data.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Social media in anesthesiology: a systematic review on typology as well as opportunities and risks].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Pooled it
- Transforming Health Data to Actionable Information: Recent Progress and Future Opportunities in Health Information Exchange.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2022Pooled it
- How to use social media to amplify your professional impact in respiratory medicine.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- The social media footprint of endoscopic spine surgery: a cross-sectional analysis of content on Twitter/X.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Social Media Depiction of Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate: Instagram Versus YouTube Shorts Analysis: Instagram Post Versus Instagram Reel Analysis.Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2025Article
- Leveraging social media data to study disease and treatment characteristics of Hodgkin's lymphoma Using Natural Language Processing methods.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Trained to care, untrained to share: the integration of social media (#SoMe) education in dental specialty programs: a scoping review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
- Social media "SoMe" in neuro-oncology: a review of the literature.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Social media and internet use among orthopedic patients in Germany-a multicenter survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Social Media Usage for Medical Education and Smartphone Addiction Among Medical Students: National Web-Based Survey.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Development of a Medical Social Media Ethics Scale and Assessment of #IRad, #CardioTwitter, and #MedTwitter Posts: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Social Media Behavior Guidelines for Healthcare Professionals: An American Society of Pain and Neuroscience NEURON Project.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Exploring social media adoption by nurses for nursing practice in rural Volta, Ghana.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Why should we care about social media codes of conduct in healthcare organisations? A systematic literature review.Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health · 2023Review
- Social Media and Professional Development for Oncology Professionals.JCO oncology practice · 2022Review
- Impact of Sexual Harassment and Social Support on Burnout in Physician Mothers.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Article
- Netiquette for social media engagement for oncology professionals.Future oncology (London, England) · 2022Review
- Physicians' Perspective of Telemedicine Regulating Guidelines and Ethical Aspects: A Saudi Experience.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2022Article
- Analysis of Cyberincivility in Posts by Health Professions Students: Descriptive Twitter Data Mining Study.JMIR medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRespecting patient privacy and confidentiality is critical for doctor-patient relationships and public trust in medical professionals. The frequency of potentially identifiable disclosures online during periods of active engagement is unknown.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to quantify potentially identifiable content shared on social media by physicians and other health care providers using the hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweet.
methodsWe accessed and searched Twitter's API using Symplur software for tweets that included the hashtag #ShareAStoryInOneTweet. We identified 1206 tweets by doctors, nurses, and other health professionals out of 43,374 tweets shared in May 2018. Tweet content was evaluated in January 2019 to determine the incidence of instances where names or potentially identifiable information about patients were shared; content analysis of tweets in which information about others had been disclosed was performed. The study also evaluated whether participants raised concerns about privacy breaches and estimated the frequency of deleted tweets. The study used dual, blinded coding for a 10% sample to estimate intercoder reliability using Cohen κ statistic for identifying the potential identifiability of tweet content.
resultsHealth care professionals (n=656) disclosing information about others included 486 doctors (74.1%) and 98 nurses (14.9%). Health care professionals sharing stories about patient care disclosed the time frame in 95 tweets (95/754, 12.6%) and included patient names in 15 tweets (15/754, 2.0%). It is estimated that friends or families could likely identify the clinical scenario described in 242 of the 754 tweets (32.1%). Among 348 tweets about potentially living patients, it was estimated that 162 (46.6%) were likely identifiable by patients. Intercoder reliability in rating the potential identifiability demonstrated 86.8% agreement, with a Cohen κ of 0.8 suggesting substantial agreement. We also identified 78 out of 754 tweets (6.5%) that had been deleted on the website but were still viewable in the analytics software data set.
conclusionsDuring periods of active sharing online, nurses, physicians, and other health professionals may sometimes share more information than patients or families might expect. More study is needed to determine whether similar events arise frequently and to understand how to best ensure that patients' rights are adequately respected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.