ReviewZeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health2023
Why should we care about social media codes of conduct in healthcare organisations? A systematic literature review.
Review in Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Power to the People: Measuring Social Media and Mass Media Impact for Promotion and Tenure in Social and Applied Sciences.Higher education policy · 2025Article
- Unmasking unconstructive online feedback in orthodontics.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- Social Media Behavior Guidelines for Healthcare Professionals: An American Society of Pain and Neuroscience NEURON Project.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
- Sentiment Impact of Public Health Agency communication Strategies on TikTok under COVID-19 Normalization: Deep Learning Exploration.Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The conduct of healthcare organisation employees on social media can impact both their personal reputation and that of the organisation. However, social media has blurred the lines between professional and personal communication, and what is acceptable and ethical conduct is not always clear. Furthermore, the global COVID-19 pandemic has changed how healthcare organisations and their employees approach the use of social media, expediting the need to ensure that employees communicating health-related information adhere to employee codes of conduct. Aims: This review aims to investigate the challenges associated with healthcare organisation employees' use of social media for sharing health-related information, identify the crucial elements for inclusion in social media codes of conduct for healthcare organisations, and examine the enablers for good codes of conduct. Methods: A systematic review of the literature from six research database platforms on articles related to codes of conduct addressing the use of social media for healthcare organisation employees was conducted. The screening process yielded 52 articles. Results: The key finding in this review focuses on privacy, protecting both patients and healthcare organisation employees. While maintaining separate professional and personal social media accounts is a much-discussed approach, training and education on social media codes of conduct can clarify acceptable behaviour both personally and professionally. Conclusion: The results raise essential questions about healthcare organisation employees' use of social media. It is evident that organisational support and a constructive culture will enable healthcare organisations to fully realise the benefits of using social media.
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.