“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 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



Aims


and Justification

References

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Ethics

Design


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.



Aims


and Justification

References

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Ethics

Design


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.



Aims


and Justification

References

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Ethics

Design



Aims


and Justification

References

Participants

Design

Ethics

Results

Previous studies

Deontological code


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.



Aims


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



Aims


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.



Aims


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

✗✓



Aims


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



Aims


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, …)



Aims


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



Aims


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.



Aims


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



Aims


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



Aims


and Justification

References

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Ethics

Design

Examples:

Healthy_Interests:

Desporto International Chemical OlympiadLiga Portuguesa Contra o CancroTable tennisBasketballRadio InvestigationReadingTravellingSocial entrepreneurshipEnvironment – CNE; INEGI




Aims


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




Aims


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



Aims


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)



Aims


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


Aims


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


Aims


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…



Aims


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



Aims


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



Aims


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)



Aims


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



Aims


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)



Aims


and Justification

References

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Ethics

Design



Aims


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%



Aims


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.



Aims


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)



Aims


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.



Aims


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



Aims


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



Aims


and Justification

References

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Ethics

Design

Conclusions

Videos the highest percentage private

appropiated content in the public profiles



Aims


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.



Aims


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.



Aims


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.



Aims


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.



Aims


and Justification

References

Participants

Results

Conclusions

Ethics

Design

References

Documents

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