“integrating professionalism in an online social life: medical students vs engineering...
DESCRIPTION
“Integrating professionalism in an online social life: medical students vs engineering students”. Introdução à Medicina II Turma 14 Prof. Cristina Santos. Title of the Protocol. Introduction : Background and Justification. Privacy VS Professionalism VS Facebook. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
“Integrating professionalism in an online social life: medical students
vs engineering students”
Introdução à Medicina IITurma 14
Prof. Cristina Santos
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
Privacy VS Professionalism VS Facebook
Integrating professionalism in an
online social life: medical
students vs engineering students
References
Participants
Design
Results
Conclusions
medical students VS engineering students
Ethics
Design
Why is it necessary to do this study?
It is important to maintain a separation between
Social and personal life
Professional life
because interacting with patients on social networking sites can create significant privacy concerns. [1,2,3]
[1] Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students. JAMA. 2009;302:1309-15.[2] Mostaghimi A, Crotty BH. Professionalism in the Digital Age. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:560-562[3] Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, Black EW, Boyer J, Coutts J, Black NP. The Intersection of Online Social Networking with Medical
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Why is it necessary to do this study?
There has been disclosure of personal information to the public through the Internet
medical students post confidential information
regarding the patient
patients access private
information about doctor’s behaviours and beliefs through
their profilesprofiles are set
for public viewing
are friends [1,4,5][1] Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical
Students. JAMA. 2009;302:1309-15.[4] Chretien KC, Goldman EF, Beckman L, Kind T. It’s Your Own Risk: Medical Students’ Perspective on Online Professionalism. Acad Med. 2010;85:S68-S71.[5] Guseh JS, Brendel RW, Brendel DH. Medical Professionalism in the Age of Online Social Networking. J Med Ethics. 2009;35:584-6.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Why is it necessary to do this study?
Recent studies show that:• medical students’ posts refer to their
personal lives or college;• 60% of students have had incidents due to
posting of unprofessional content, 13% of which involving violation of patient confidentiality;
• students use sexually sugestive or explicit material, depiction of intoxication and profanity/discriminatory language.[4]
[4] Chretien KC, Goldman EF, Beckman L, Kind T. It’s Your Own Risk: Medical Students’ Perspective on Online Professionalism. Acad Med. 2010;85:S68-S71.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Design
Ethics
Results
Previous studies
Deontological code
Why is it necessary to do this study?
Some students are not aware of the influence of their online behavior
in their future careers
in the institutions
they represent
[1,3,4,6]
[1] Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students. JAMA. 2009;302:1309-15.[3] Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, Black EW, Boyer J, Coutts J, Black NP. The Intersection of Online Social Networking with Medical Professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:954-957.[4] Chretien KC, Goldman EF, Beckman L, Kind T. It’s Your Own Risk: Medical Students’ Perspective on Online Professionalism. Acad Med. 2010;85:S68-S71.[6] MacDonald J, Sohn S, Ellis P. Privacy, Professionalism and Facebook: a Dilemma for Young Doctors. Medical Education. 2010;44:805-813.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Research question:
Do medical students from FMUP who comment on the AeFMUP official facebook
page post inappropriate content on their facebook profile in comparison to
engineering students? population interventio
noutcome
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
This study aimed to …
Verify if FMUP and FEUP students who comment on the AeFMUP or AeFEUP official page post inappropriate content on their personal profiles;
Analyze those profiles, in order to quantify and categorize the posted inappropriate material;
Compare the two groups of students;
Compare behaviours between genders.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
AEFMUP and AEFEUP facebook page
• Private profile – regarding college
• Not FMUP/FEUP students
• FMUP/FEUP students• Former FMUP/FEUP
students
✗✓
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Design
Ethics
Results 100 people from each Facebook page(50 male/50 female)
Analysis of several FMUP and FEUP students’ and former students’ Facebook profiles that commented or liked the AEFMUP or AEFEUP’s Facebook page
•access the Facebook page
•verify the privacy settings
•analyze the information contained in the ‘Info’ page
•analyze the information contained in the ‘Wall’ page
•analyze the information contained in the ‘Photos’ and ‘Videos’ page
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
When reviewing the profiles, we will take into account:
Personal information (date of birth, civil status, sexual orientation, home or current town, political and religious preferences, …)
Interests/hobbies (if they are related to alcohol or healthy behaviors, or are neutral)
Associated groups (class, potential lack of professionalism, charity, politics, religion, …)
Photos and videos (trips, alcohol, tobacco, family, friends, underwear, …)
Wall (status update, complaints of work, plans to drink alcohol, discriminatory comments, …)
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
The information collected will be displayed in the form of a table, using SPSS in order to:
• maintain the organization of the data;• facilitate its analysis.
SPSS Table
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
We considered that ethical approval was not necessary because: We only examined material that was
available to the public in general;
All the information used in our study is available to everyone;
The anonymity will be ensured throughout the investigation;
We don’t want to influence future publications by telling the students the aim of our subject.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Privacity: personal information
FMUP%
FEUP% p
Date_of_Birth 85 81 0.451Sex 23 17 0.289Relationship_Status 69 80 0.074Hometown 48 32 0.021Current_City 57 24 <0.001Sexual_Orientation 92 90 0.621Mobile_Phone_Number 98 100 0.497Political_Views 100 100 -Religious_Views 84 97 0.002Interests 32 25 0.273
Table 1: % of private items per college
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Interests(analyse only when profiles have open access)
FMUP FEUPp
n % n %Inappropriate_Interests
3 (4) 7 (9) 0,329Healthy_Interests 24 (34) 25 (33) 0,904
Table 2: Analyse of the interests (when profiles aren’t private)
n=68 FMUP n=75 FEUP
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Examples:
Healthy_Interests:
Desporto International Chemical OlympiadLiga Portuguesa Contra o CancroTable tennisBasketballRadio InvestigationReadingTravellingSocial entrepreneurshipEnvironment – CNE; INEGI
Interests(analyse only when profiles have open access)
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Examples:
Inappropriate_Interests: "I catch myself saying or thinking W-T-F!“Nunca se deixa um amigo beber sozinhoLevantamento de copo (como desporto)VERBO GANZA - eu filtro, tu queimas, ele enrola,
nos fumamos, vos olhais, eles riem-se! (y)Monstro das ressacasGosto dos venenos mais lentos, das bebidas mais
fortes, das drogas mais poderosas, dos cafes mais amargos... Tenho um apetite voraz e os delirios mais loucos... Podem empurrar-me de um penhasco que eu vou dizer: E dai? Eu adoro voar!!
Licor beirãoSuperbock
Interests(analyse only when profiles have open access)
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Groups(analyse only when profiles have open access)
FMUP FEUPp
n % n %Class 2 (17) 1 (5) 0,279
Lack_of_Professionalism 0 (0) 1 (5) 1,000
Discriminatory Behaviour 1 (8) 4 (18) 0,635
Charity_Related 1 (8) 8 (36) 0,113
Religion_Based 0 (0) 0 (0) -
Political 0 (0) 0 (0) -
Healthy_Behaviours 1 (8) 3 (14) 0,646
Table 3: Analyse of the groups (when profiles aren’t private)
n=12 FMUP n=22 FEUP
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Examples:
Negative:Engenharia DepressãoMovimento Engenheiros à Rasca. Valorizar a
Profissão; Escola Primária Várzea – Barcelos…
Positive:AMI - Assistência Médica InternacionalTrust Me, I'm an "Engineer“World University Championship Beach Volleyball
2014 - Official, Promover Portugal; Bolsa do VoluntariadoLuta Contra o Cancro…
Groups(analyse only when profiles have open access)
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
FMUP FEUPProfile_Photos Private 38 36
<10 43 5210<X<50 14 9>50 5 3
Table 4: % Privacity and quantification of profiles’s photos
PhotosTitle of the
Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Table 5: Analyse of non private profiles’s photos
FMUP FEUP p
n % n %
Travels 25 (40) 19 (30) 0,211
Healthy_Behaviour 22 (35) 15 (23) 0,138
Alcohol_Or_Drugs_Related 12 (19) 12 (19) 1,000
Smoking 5 (8) 2 (3) 0,269
Family 9 (15) 12 (19) 0,524
Friends 39 (63) 37 (59) 0,685
Relationship 9 (15) 4 (6) 0,127
Inappropriate_Behaviour 4 (6) 4 (6) 1,000
Minor_Clothing 3 (5) 6 (9) 0,492
PhotosTitle of the
Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Photos
Examples of inappropriate behaviours in photos:
InebriationShots in a tableDrinking beerAlcoholPonting (water) guns inside the subway Insulting peopleDrunk in “Queima das Fitas” with friends…
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Table 6: % of privacity and publications publicated or not
Wall Publications
FMUP FEUP
Wall_Publications
Private 22 26
Yes 76 73
No 2 1
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Wall Publications
Table 7: Analyse of publications in non private profiles
FMUP FEUP Pn % n %
Hurt_Sick_Tired_Overwhelmed 3 (4) 3 (4) 1,000
Work_Related_Complaints 2 (3) 5 (7) 0,269Disinterest_Towards_Profession 0 (0) 0 (0) -
Plans_To_Get_Inebriated 1 (2) 4 (5) 0,373Offensive_Language 0 (0) 2 (3) 0,499Discriminatory_Language 3 (5) 0 (0) 0,095
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Wall PublicationsExamples of negative comments about job:
Manifestação: Ação Social Direta: Bolsas de Estudo 21/03; Ainda és estudante? Sim e ainda me falta algum tempo pra acabar -.-;
6 horas a segurar paredes merece foto publicada, para expressar a raiva pelo tempo de espera;
"Ficou o fim de semana a estudar“
complaints about teachers (without specifying names)
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Videos
FMUP FEUP
Videos
Private 37 67
Yes and appropriateYes and inapropriate
20
200
No 61 13Table 8: Privacity and video’s avaliation
Examples of the themes of the vídeos: Music; Sports
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Wall PublicationsExamples of negative comments about job:
Manifestação: Ação Social Direta: Bolsas de Estudo 21/03; Ainda és estudante? Sim e ainda me falta algum tempo pra acabar -.-;
6 horas a segurar paredes merece foto publicada, para expressar a raiva pelo tempo de espera;
"Ficou o fim de semana a estudar“
complaints about teachers (without specifying names)
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
ConclusionsThe majority of FMUP and FEUP’s students display few
personal information.
Privacity for:• Telephone number• Sexual orientation
• Religious and political preferencies
Comparing both colleges FMUP reveals a bigger privacy then FEUP, relatively to:
Home town, FMUP 48%, and FEUP 32%
Actual city, FMUP 57%, and FEUP 24%
Although their privacy is significatively affected according religious preferences
FMUP 84% FEUP 97%
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Conclusions
Having the previous results in mind, we can infer that students from either college
are aware that anyone can access this
information, preferring to keep them private to the general public.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Conclusions
Interests the majority of them are private
the majority of them are healthy (FMUP: 34% e FEUP: 33%)
few of them are inappropriate (FMUP: 4% e FEUP:
9%) (there are no significant differences (p>0,05) between the two colleges regarding these
two variables)
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
ConclusionsGroups a small % of students has this variable as not private
absence of association with groups related to political or religious *
a small % has groups associated to discriminatory/ lack of professionalism*
FEUP: 18% FMUP: 4%
*the difference between the two colleges is not significant
FEUP students showed a considerably higher percentage of charity (36%) and healthy behavior (14%) linked groups,
when compared with FMUP’s.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
ConclusionsPhotos more than 50% of the students have their photos available
% of photos related to alcohol or drugs:*
FMUP: 19 % FEUP:19%% photos with innappropriate
behaviours::*FMUP: 6% FEUP: 6%% photos in minor clothing :*FMUP: 5% FEUP: 9%
% photos with healthy behaviours > % photos with innapropriated behaviours
*the difference between the two college is not significant
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Conclusions
Publications few students have their publications private (FMUP and FEUP): <30%
a small % of negative nature*
Negative comments: complaints about their course, fatigue desinterst in the profession or ofensive and discraminatory language
*the difference between the two college is not significant
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Conclusions
Videos the highest percentage private
appropiated content in the public profiles
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
ConclusionsFEUP students are reflected in both
extremes:
they reveal higher percentages for negative and positive aspects
FEUP students’:more involved with charity events and
healthy behaviors
but they also …
display discriminatory behavior more often.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Conclusions
•in general students from neither college actively shared their religious or political views.
•it has been shown occasional incidents regarding lack of professionalism and depiction of inappropriate behavior
•the positive aspects found in the students’ profiles of both institutions have largely overlap the negative ones
stare self-conscious of the image they let out to the general public.
students are concerned about impression they pass on that might affected their present or future
personal and professional lives.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Conclusions
According to the findings….
•FEUP study group tend to be more emotive and open about their ideals and opinions, appearing as they are less thoughtful of the consequences of that they share and do in these social networks
•FMUP students tend to remain private their more items on their profiles when compared with FEUP’s.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
Conclusions
Lack of statistically significant differences between the two groups:
to the small amount of individuals in the samples,
Solution: generating bigger samples
eading to statistically relevant results and therefore founded conclusions.
[1] Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online Posting of Unprofessional Content by Medical Students. JAMA. 2009;302:1309-15.[2] Mostaghimi A, Crotty BH. Professionalism in the Digital Age. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:560-562[3] Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, Black EW, Boyer J, Coutts J, Black NP. The Intersection of Online Social Networking with Medical Professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:954-957.[4] Chretien KC, Goldman EF, Beckman L, Kind T. It’s Your Own Risk: Medical Students’ Perspective on Online Professionalism. Acad Med. 2010;85:S68-S71.[5] Guseh JS, Brendel RW, Brendel DH. Medical Professionalism in the Age of Online Social Networking. J Med Ethics. 2009;35:584-6.[6] MacDonald J, Sohn S, Ellis P. Privacy, Professionalism and Facebook: a Dilemma for Young Doctors. Medical Education. 2010;44:805-813.
Title of the Protocol
Research question and
Aims
Introduction: Background
and Justification
References
Participants
Results
Conclusions
Ethics
Design
References