On 2014 Jan 10, Farooq Rathore commented:

Nobody can deny the importance of social media, but the doctor has to strike a balance between his professional demands and the urge to check the latest facebook post or reply to a tweet ASAP. All social media have the option of customization and if a physician chooses wisely he will be able to have latest knowledge and information from the social media at his finger tips ( literally)

In addition doctors are humans too. We need to socialize and a little bit of socialization on FB, Twitter or G+ might not hurt if we keep a track of the time we need to spend of these social media sites

On 2013 Dec 22, William Brieger commented:

Obviously social media like any other form of expression is an individual choice. The usual social media account by health professionals attracts a limited following of people with specific interests. Social media can be used to keep colleagues up to date on activities in their specific field. When attending professional conferences, physicians and other health workers can use social media to share what they are learning with colleagues who are unable to attend. Various privacy settings are available for those who want to control who reads their postings. Again, use of social media must have a purpose for individual users, and if it does not advance professional practice for an individual, there is no reason she/he should not use social media except among friends and family.

On 2013 Dec 21, Allison Stelling commented:

First of all, thank you Anne Marie for linking to the pdf of your paper.

I must say that I disagree with Decamp about the future and usefulness of social media as a means to distribute medical information. I do feel he is correct that no MD ought to be forced to participate if they do not feel so inclined. Those who are so inclined, however, must be rewarded and guided, not punished.

Several of the phrases Decamp uses in his essay are quite telling ie, "On the contrary, the brevity, lack of control, and permanence of online information make engaging in such activities even more risky in the online realm." Such statements are loaded with fear- fear of loss of control of a conversation that is traditionally held between experts and bypasses any patient interaction. (Also, if one fears brevity, then one can get one's own blog where one can go on a bit.)

This is an unwarranted fear that is eating away at the heart of American medicine. If you fear your public misunderstands you, educate them.

Medicine is a public service, a public good; and as such must be publicly scrutinized (and funded, for that matter, but that is a different topic). Medicine and public health issues are a dialogue that must be had between the medical doctors, the public they serve, and the scientific researchers who lay the foundations for medical discoveries.

The days of dictation and monologues delivered to an unresponding audience are gone. We need an educated and enthusiastic population to further our goals of cures. (I would settle simply for more accurate diagnostics!) And- even if the public is not permitted to speak during a particular conversation that they funded- they do have the right to view it and ask questions afterwards.

Rapid dissemination of solid medical information is a crucial ingredient to my nation's- and the world's- future health. USA tax money pays for quite a percentage of foundational health research, and my nation's taxpayers have a fundamental right to the information and research for which they paid.

Decamp also states that the "role of physician expertise is unclear." Perhaps it is not expertise that patients seek online from MDs, but comfort- and someone who will listen to them.

As for the "mistakes" section- yes, MDs are human. They make mistakes. I've worked with many MDs in the course of my career, and the one prevalent flaw was an unwillingness to admit error. Over-confidence and an idealized image of perfection is haunting the medical community- remnants of a not-to-distant past wherein they were likened to "gods amongst men".

We know very little about life and death, and the chemical differences that separate them. I would suggest it is high time the MDs drop the facade of certainty and confidence, and come into the light of collaborative discourse that social media enables. -Allison (https://twitter.com/DrStelling)

On 2013 Dec 21, Hilda Bastian commented:

That's a useful list of reasons for value in social media for physicians. Further support for the "to learn" argument and finding good curators among peers comes from the growth of social media as a gateway to medical literature. James Colbert et al reported at the 2013 Peer Review Congress that for NEJM, Facebook and Twitter are both in the top 10 referring sites to the journal (at 6 and 10 respectively). Readers might also be interested in reports on the role of social media for journals and societies in dermatology (Amir M, 2014) and ophthalmology (Micieli R, 2012).

On 2013 Dec 21, Anne Marie Cunningham commented:

Full free text pdf of this paper can be found here http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/decamp_cunningham_curr_cont.pdf The RCPE journal is OA. They even let me retain copyright on this publication and licensed them to publish it. But for some reason PubMed doesn't link to the journal home page etc.

Hope you enjoy- please leave us feedback!

On 2013 Dec 21, Anne Marie Cunningham commented:

Full free text pdf of this paper can be found here http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/sites/default/files/decamp_cunningham_curr_cont.pdf The RCPE journal is OA. They even let me retain copyright on this publication and licensed them to publish it. But for some reason PubMed doesn't link to the journal home page etc.

Hope you enjoy- please leave us feedback!

On 2013 Dec 21, Allison Stelling commented:

First of all, thank you Anne Marie for linking to the pdf of your paper.

I must say that I disagree with Decamp about the future and usefulness of social media as a means to distribute medical information. I do feel he is correct that no MD ought to be forced to participate if they do not feel so inclined. Those who are so inclined, however, must be rewarded and guided, not punished.

Several of the phrases Decamp uses in his essay are quite telling ie, "On the contrary, the brevity, lack of control, and permanence of online information make engaging in such activities even more risky in the online realm." Such statements are loaded with fear- fear of loss of control of a conversation that is traditionally held between experts and bypasses any patient interaction. (Also, if one fears brevity, then one can get one's own blog where one can go on a bit.)

This is an unwarranted fear that is eating away at the heart of American medicine. If you fear your public misunderstands you, educate them.

Medicine is a public service, a public good; and as such must be publicly scrutinized (and funded, for that matter, but that is a different topic). Medicine and public health issues are a dialogue that must be had between the medical doctors, the public they serve, and the scientific researchers who lay the foundations for medical discoveries.

The days of dictation and monologues delivered to an unresponding audience are gone. We need an educated and enthusiastic population to further our goals of cures. (I would settle simply for more accurate diagnostics!) And- even if the public is not permitted to speak during a particular conversation that they funded- they do have the right to view it and ask questions afterwards.

Rapid dissemination of solid medical information is a crucial ingredient to my nation's- and the world's- future health. USA tax money pays for quite a percentage of foundational health research, and my nation's taxpayers have a fundamental right to the information and research for which they paid.

Decamp also states that the "role of physician expertise is unclear." Perhaps it is not expertise that patients seek online from MDs, but comfort- and someone who will listen to them.

As for the "mistakes" section- yes, MDs are human. They make mistakes. I've worked with many MDs in the course of my career, and the one prevalent flaw was an unwillingness to admit error. Over-confidence and an idealized image of perfection is haunting the medical community- remnants of a not-to-distant past wherein they were likened to "gods amongst men".

We know very little about life and death, and the chemical differences that separate them. I would suggest it is high time the MDs drop the facade of certainty and confidence, and come into the light of collaborative discourse that social media enables. -Allison (https://twitter.com/DrStelling)

On 2013 Dec 22, William Brieger commented:

Obviously social media like any other form of expression is an individual choice. The usual social media account by health professionals attracts a limited following of people with specific interests. Social media can be used to keep colleagues up to date on activities in their specific field. When attending professional conferences, physicians and other health workers can use social media to share what they are learning with colleagues who are unable to attend. Various privacy settings are available for those who want to control who reads their postings. Again, use of social media must have a purpose for individual users, and if it does not advance professional practice for an individual, there is no reason she/he should not use social media except among friends and family.

On 2014 Jan 10, Farooq Rathore commented:

Nobody can deny the importance of social media, but the doctor has to strike a balance between his professional demands and the urge to check the latest facebook post or reply to a tweet ASAP. All social media have the option of customization and if a physician chooses wisely he will be able to have latest knowledge and information from the social media at his finger tips ( literally)

In addition doctors are humans too. We need to socialize and a little bit of socialization on FB, Twitter or G+ might not hurt if we keep a track of the time we need to spend of these social media sites