1 / 40

“Integrating professionalism in an online social life: medical students vs engineering students”

“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.

jubal
Download Presentation

“Integrating professionalism in an online social life: medical students vs engineering students”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Integrating professionalism in an online social life: medical students vs engineering students” Introdução à Medicina II Turma 14 Prof. Cristina Santos

  2. TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification PrivacyVSProfessionalismVSFacebook medical studentsVSengineering students Research questionandAims Participants Integrating professionalism in an online social life: medical students vsengineering students Design Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  3. TitleoftheProtocol Whyisitnecessary to do thisstudy? Introduction: Background andJustification • Itisimportant to maintain a separationbetween Research questionandAims Social andpersonallife Professional life Participants Design becauseinteracting with patients on social networking sites can create significant privacy concerns. [1,2,3] Ethics Results [1] Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online PostingofUnprofessionalContentbyMedicalStudents. JAMA. 2009;302:1309-15. [2] Mostaghimi A, Crotty BH. Professionalisminthe Digital Age. AnnInternMed. 2011;154:560-562 [3] Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, Black EW, Boyer J, Coutts J, Black NP. TheIntersectionof Online Social NetworkingwithMedical Conclusions References

  4. Whyisitnecessary to do thisstudy? TitleoftheProtocol • There has been disclosure of personal information to the public through the Internet Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims patients access private information about doctor’s behaviours and beliefs through their profiles medicalstudentspostconfidentialinformationregardingthepatient Participants Design Ethics profiles are set for publicviewing Results are friends [1,4,5] Conclusions [1] Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online PostingofUnprofessionalContentbyMedicalStudents. JAMA. 2009;302:1309-15. [4] Chretien KC, Goldman EF, Beckman L, Kind T. It’s YourOwnRisk: MedicalStudents’ Perspective on Online Professionalism. AcadMed. 2010;85:S68-S71. [5] Guseh JS, Brendel RW, Brendel DH. MedicalProfessionalisminthe Age of Online Social Networking. J MedEthics. 2009;35:584-6. References

  5. TitleoftheProtocol Whyisitnecessary to do thisstudy? Introduction: Background andJustification • Recentstudies show that: • medical students’postsrefer to theirpersonallivesorcollege; • 60%ofstudentshavehadincidentsdue to postingofunprofessionalcontent, 13%ofwhichinvolvingviolationofpatientconfidentiality; • studentsusesexuallysugestiveorexplicit material, depictionofintoxicationandprofanity/discriminatorylanguage.[4] Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions [4] Chretien KC, Goldman EF, Beckman L, Kind T. It’s YourOwnRisk: MedicalStudents’ Perspective on Online Professionalism. AcadMed. 2010;85:S68-S71. References

  6. TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Previousstudies Deontological code Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results References

  7. Whyisitnecessary to do thisstudy? TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification • Some studentsare not aware of the influence of their online behavior Research questionandAims Participants intheinstitutionstheyrepresent [1,3,4,6] intheirfuturecareers Design Ethics [1] Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online PostingofUnprofessionalContentbyMedicalStudents. JAMA. 2009;302:1309-15. [3] Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, Black EW, Boyer J, Coutts J, Black NP. TheIntersectionof Online Social NetworkingwithMedicalProfessionalism. J GenInternMed. 2008;23:954-957. [4] Chretien KC, Goldman EF, Beckman L, Kind T. It’s YourOwnRisk: MedicalStudents’ Perspective on Online Professionalism. AcadMed. 2010;85:S68-S71. [6] MacDonald J, Sohn S, Ellis P. Privacy, ProfessionalismandFacebook: a Dilemma for YoungDoctors. MedicalEducation. 2010;44:805-813. Results Conclusions References

  8. Research question: Do medical students from FMUP who comment on the AeFMUP official facebookpage post inappropriate content on their facebook profile in comparison to engineering students? TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results population intervention outcome Conclusions References

  9. TitleoftheProtocol This study aimed to … Introduction: Background andJustification • 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. Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  10. TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification ✗ • Private profile – regarding college • Not FMUP/FEUP students Research questionandAims Participants ✓ • FMUP/FEUP students • Former FMUP/FEUP students Design Ethics Results References

  11. Analysis of several FMUP and FEUP students’ and former students’ Facebook profiles that commented or liked the AEFMUP or AEFEUP’s Facebook page TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  12. TitleoftheProtocol • Whenreviewingtheprofiles, wewilltakeintoaccount: • Personalinformation(date ofbirth, civil status, sexual orientation, homeorcurrenttown, politicalandreligiouspreferences, …) • Interests/hobbies (ifthey are related to alcohol or healthy behaviors, or are neutral) • Associatedgroups(class, potentiallackofprofessionalism, charity, politics, religion, …) • Photosandvideos (trips, alcohol, tobacco, family, friends, underwear, …) • Wall (status update, complaintsofwork, plans to drink alcohol, discriminatorycomments, …) Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  13. TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification • The information collected will be displayed in the form of a table, using SPSSin order to: • maintain the organization of the data; • facilitate its analysis. • SPSS Table Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  14. TitleoftheProtocol • Weconsideredthatethical 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. Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  15. Privacity: personalinformation TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions Table 1: % of private items per college References

  16. Interests(analyseonlywhenprofileshave open access) TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims • n=75 FEUP • n=68 FMUP Participants Design Ethics • Table 2: Analyseoftheinterests (whenprofilesaren’tprivate) Results Conclusions References

  17. Interests(analyseonlywhenprofileshave open access) TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification • Examples: • Healthy_Interests: • Desporto • International Chemical Olympiad • Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro • Table tennis • Basketball • Radio • Investigation • Reading • Travelling • Social entrepreneurship • Environment – CNE; INEGI Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  18. Interests(analyseonlywhenprofileshave open access) TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification • Examples: • Inappropriate_Interests: • "I catchmyselfsayingorthinking W-T-F!“ • Nunca se deixa um amigo beber sozinho • Levantamento de copo (como desporto) • VERBO GANZA - eu filtro, tu queimas, ele enrola, nos fumamos, vos olhais, eles riem-se! (y) • Monstro das ressacas • Gosto 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? Euadorovoar!! • Licorbeirão • Superbock Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  19. Groups(analyseonlywhenprofileshave open access) TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification • n=12 FMUP n=22 FEUP Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results • Table 3: Analyseofthegroups (whenprofilesaren’tprivate) Conclusions References

  20. Groups(analyseonlywhenprofileshave open access) TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification • Examples: • Negative: • Engenharia Depressão • Movimento Engenheiros à Rasca. Valorizar a Profissão; Escola Primária Várzea – Barcelos • … • Positive: • AMI - Assistência Médica Internacional • Trust Me, I'man "Engineer“ • WorldUniversityChampionshipBeachVolleyball 2014 - Official, Promover Portugal; • Bolsa do Voluntariado • Luta Contra o Cancro • … Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  21. Photos TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Table 4: % Privacityandquantificationofprofiles’sphotos Results Conclusions References

  22. TitleoftheProtocol Photos Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Table 5: Analyseof non privateprofiles’sphotos Conclusions References

  23. TitleoftheProtocol Photos Introduction: Background andJustification • Examplesofinappropriatebehaviours in photos: • Inebriation • Shots in a table • Drinkingbeer • Alcohol • Ponting (water) gunsinsidethesubway • Insultingpeople • Drunk in “Queima das Fitas” withfriends • … Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  24. Wall Publications TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics • Table 6: % ofprivacityandpublicationspublicatedornot Results Conclusions References

  25. Wall Publications TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Table 7: Analyseofpublications in non privateprofiles Conclusions References

  26. TitleoftheProtocol Wall Publications Introduction: Background andJustification • Examplesof negative commentsabout 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“ • complaintsaboutteachers (withoutspecifyingnames) Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  27. TitleoftheProtocol Videos Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Table 8: Privacityandvideo’savaliation Results Conclusions • Examplesofthethemesofthe vídeos: Music; Sports References

  28. TitleoftheProtocol Wall Publications Introduction: Background andJustification • Examplesof negative commentsabout 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“ • complaintsaboutteachers (withoutspecifyingnames) Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  29. Conclusions TitleoftheProtocol Themajorityof FMUP andFEUP’sstudents display fewpersonalinformation. Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims • Privacity for: • Telephonenumber • Sexual orientation • Religiousandpolitical preferencies Comparingbothcolleges FMUP reveals a biggerprivacythen FEUP, relatively to: Participants Design Actualcity, FMUP 57%, and FEUP 24% Hometown, FMUP 48%, and FEUP 32% Ethics Results Althoughtheirprivacyissignificativelyaffectedaccordingreligiouspreferences Conclusions References FMUP 84% FEUP 97%

  30. TitleoftheProtocol Conclusions Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims 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. Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  31. TitleoftheProtocol Conclusions Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Intereststhemajorityofthem are private  themajorityofthem are healthy (FMUP: 34% e FEUP: 33%)  fewofthem are inappropriate (FMUP: 4% e FEUP: 9%) Participants Design Ethics Results (there are no significantdifferences (p>0,05) betweenthetwocollegesregardingthesetwovariables) Conclusions References

  32. TitleoftheProtocol Conclusions Introduction: Background andJustification Groups asmall %ofstudentshasthisvariable as notprivate absenceofassociationwithgroupsrelated to politicalorreligious* a small % hasgroupsassociated to discriminatory/ lackofprofessionalism* FEUP: 18% FMUP: 4% Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics FEUP students showed a considerably higher percentage of charity (36%) and healthy behavior (14%) linked groups, when compared with FMUP’s. Results Conclusions References *thedifferencebetweenthetwocollegesisnotsignificant

  33. TitleoftheProtocol Conclusions Introduction: Background andJustification Photos more than 50% ofthestudentshavetheirphotosavailable % ofphotosrelated to alcoholordrugs:* FMUP: 19 % FEUP:19% % photoswithinnappropriatebehaviours::* FMUP: 6% FEUP: 6% % photos in minorclothing :* FMUP: 5% FEUP: 9% % photoswithhealthybehaviours > % photoswithinnapropriatedbehaviours Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions *thedifferencebetweenthetwocollegeisnotsignificant References

  34. TitleoftheProtocol Conclusions Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Publicationsfewstudentshavetheirpublicationsprivate (FMUP and FEUP): <30% a small%of negative nature* Participants Design Ethics Negative comments:complaintsabouttheircourse, fatigue desinterst in theprofessionorofensiveanddiscraminatorylanguage Results Conclusions *thedifferencebetweenthetwocollegeisnotsignificant References

  35. TitleoftheProtocol Conclusions Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims Participants Videosthehighestpercentageprivate appropiatedcontentin thepublicprofiles Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  36. Conclusions TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification FEUP students are reflected in both extremes: they reveal higher percentages fornegative and positive aspects Research questionandAims Participants Design • FEUP students’: • more involved with charity events and healthy behaviors • but they also … • display discriminatory behavior more often. Ethics Results Conclusions References

  37. Conclusions TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification • 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 ofboth institutions have largely overlap the negative ones Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics 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. Results Conclusions References

  38. Conclusions TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims According to the findings…. • FEUP study grouptend 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. Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  39. Conclusions TitleoftheProtocol Introduction: Background andJustification Research questionandAims 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. Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

  40. TitleoftheProtocol References Introduction: Background andJustification [1] Chretien KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online PostingofUnprofessionalContentbyMedicalStudents. JAMA. 2009;302:1309-15. [2] Mostaghimi A, Crotty BH. Professionalisminthe Digital Age. AnnInternMed. 2011;154:560-562 [3] Thompson LA, Dawson K, Ferdig R, Black EW, Boyer J, Coutts J, Black NP. TheIntersectionof Online Social NetworkingwithMedicalProfessionalism. J GenInternMed. 2008;23:954-957. [4] Chretien KC, Goldman EF, Beckman L, Kind T. It’s YourOwnRisk: MedicalStudents’ Perspective on Online Professionalism. AcadMed. 2010;85:S68-S71. [5] Guseh JS, Brendel RW, Brendel DH. MedicalProfessionalisminthe Age of Online Social Networking. J MedEthics. 2009;35:584-6. [6] MacDonald J, Sohn S, Ellis P. Privacy, ProfessionalismandFacebook: a Dilemma for YoungDoctors. MedicalEducation. 2010;44:805-813. Research questionandAims Participants Design Ethics Results Conclusions References

More Related