Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social media for patients: benefits and drawbacks

  • Social Media and Orthopedics (P Sculco, section editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of review

Social media is increasingly utilized by patients to educate themselves on a disease process and to find hospital, physicians, and physician networks most capable of treating their condition. However, little is known about quality of the content of the multiple online platforms patients have to communicate with other potential patients and their potential benefits and drawbacks.

Recent findings

Patients are not passive consumers of health information anymore but are playing an active role in the delivery of health services through an online environment. The control and the regulation of the sources of information are very difficult. The overall quality of the information was poor. Bad or misleading information can be detrimental for patients as well as influence their confidence on physicians and their mutual relationship.

Summary

Orthopedic surgeons and hospital networks must be aware of these online patient portals as they provide important feedback on the patient opinion and experience that can have a major impact on future patient volume, patient opinion, and perceived quality of care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJ. Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:859–60. doi:10.1056/NEJMc0909595.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson JB. Merchants of culture. The publishing business in the twenty-first century. Business. 2011:209–20. doi:10.1108/17506200710779521.

  3. von Muhlen M, Ohno-Machado L. Reviewing social media use by clinicians. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2012;19:777–81. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaplan AM, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus Horiz. 2010;53:59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ventola CL. Social media and health care professionals: benefits, risks, and best practices. P T. 2014;39:491–520.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hamm MP, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Scott SD, Given LM, et al. Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2013;3:1–10. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Househ M, Borycki E, Kushniruk A. Empowering patients through social media: the benefits and challenges. Health Informatics J. 2014;20:50–8. doi:10.1177/1460458213476969.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duggan M. The demographics of social media users n.d. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/.

  9. Health Fact Sheet n.d. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/health-fact-sheet/.

  10. Eckler P, Worsowicz G, Rayburn JW. Social media and health care: an overview. PM R. 2010;2:1046–50. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.09.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lenhart A, Purcell K, Smith A, Zickuhr K. Social media & mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. n.d. http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/02/03/social-media-and-young-adults/.

  12. Korda H, Itani Z. Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promot Pract. 2011:15–23. doi:10.1177/1524839911405850.

  13. Perrin A. Social media usage: 2005–2015 n.d. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/.

  14. Antheunis ML, Tates K, Nieboer TE. Patients’ and health professionals’ use of social media in health care: motives, barriers and expectations. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92:426–31. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. • Krempec J, Hall J, Biermann JS. Internet use by patients in orthopaedic surgery. Iowa Orthop J. 2003;23:80–2. The authors evaluated Internet use among orthopedic patients in a private practice general orthopedic setting. Forty-five percent of patients had used the Internet either personally or thru a surrogate to search for information about their orthopedic condition. The majority of users found medical information on Internet sites to be useful and accurate. The number one choice for reconciling conflicting information was to ask a physician or a nurse

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. • Curry E, Li X, Nguyen J, Matzkin E. Prevalence of internet and social media usage in orthopedic surgery. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2014;6:5483. doi:10.4081/or.2014.5483. The authors evaluated the prevalence of Internet or social media usage in new patients referred to a major academic orthopedics center. Seven hundred fifty-two first-time adult patients were surveyed. Fifty percent of patients used social networking sites, and in their multivariable regression analysis, they found that younger patient age and patients having performed prior research on their condition were more likely to use social networking sites. Sports medicine patients tended to be higher social networking users (35.9%) relative to other services (9.8–17.9%). Younger age was the biggest indicator predicting the use of social media

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rozental TD, George TM, Chacko AT. Social networking among upper extremity patients. J Hand Surg. 2010;35:819–23. e811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sadah SA, Shahbazi M, Wiley MT, Hristidis V. Demographic-based content analysis of web-based health-related social media. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18:e148. doi:10.2196/jmir.5327.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilson EV. Patient-centered e-health. United States: Medical Information Science Reference; September 15, 2008

  20. Hoffman-Goetz L, Donelle L, Thomson MD. Clinical guidelines about diabetes and the accuracy of peer information in an unmoderated online health forum for retired persons. Inform Health Soc Care. 2009;34:91–9. doi:10.1080/17538150902865136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kordzadeh N. Social media in health care. Contemporary consumer health informatics. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 101–23. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25973-4_6.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Greene JA, Choudhry NK, Kilabuk E, Shrank WH. Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with Facebook. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:287–92. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1526-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tanis M. Health-related on-line forums: what’s the big attraction? J Health Commun. 2008;13:698–714. doi:10.1080/10810730802415316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lagu T, Hannon NS, Rothberg MB, Lindenauer PK. Patients’ evaluations of health care providers in the era of social networking: an analysis of physician-rating websites. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(9):942–6. doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1383-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Kadry B, Chu LF, Kadry B, Gammas D, Macario A. Analysis of 4999 online physician ratings indicates that most patients give physicians a favorable rating. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13:e95. doi:10.2196/jmir.1960.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Agarwal N, Yiliyasi Y. Information quality challenges in social media. Proc 15th Int Conf Inf Qual 2010:234–48

  27. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277:1244–5. doi:10.1001/jama.277.15.1244.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:105–11. doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Boyer C, Selby M, Appel RD. The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health web sites. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;52:1163–6. doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-896-0-1163.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. • Cassidy JT, Baker JF. Orthopaedic patient information on the World Wide Web: an essential review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:325–38. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.01189. The authors performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature pertaining online orthopedic information. Thirty-eight peer-reviewed articles published since were reviewed. They found that the quality and readability of online orthopedic information were generally poor. Studies examining readability have focused on pages produced by professional orthopedic societies

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. • Brooks FM, Lawrence H, Jones A, McCarthy MJH. Youtube as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96:144–6. doi:10.1308/003588414X13814021676396. The authors performed a systematic search of YouTube videos on lumbar discectomy to assess their quality. Eighty-one videos were identified, with a total number of viewings of 2,722,964 (range 139–111,891) and an average number of 34,037 viewings per video. They found that the quality of YouTube videos was variable. There were 16 with a rating of “good”, 25 with a rating of “average,” and 40 with a rating of “poor” or “inadequate.” The most common missing information was related to anesthesia or complications. Most videos (69/81) were broadcast by surgeons or surgical institutes

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. • Elhassan Y, Sheridan G, Nassiri M, Osman M, Kiely P, Noel J. Discectomy-related information on the internet: does the quality follow the surge? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40:121–5. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000689. The authors evaluated the quality of discectomy-related information available on the Internet. Fifty-three web sites were identified and analyzed. Commercial web sites were predominant. The overall quality of information regarding discectomy was poor and variable despite an exponential increase in the number of users and web sites, with a slight trend toward improvement; only 20 to 30% are of good quality, compared with that 10 years ago (<10%)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Complex Joint Reconstruction Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Ivan De Martino

  2. Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement Division, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Rocco D’Apolito, Alexander S. McLawhorn & Peter K. Sculco

  3. Hip & Knee Center, Ortho Carolina, 2001 Vail Avenue Suite 200A, Charlotte, NC, 28207, USA

    Keith A. Fehring

  4. Orthopedic Surgery Division, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Catanzaro Magna Græcia, Viale Europa, Germaneto, 88100, Catanzaro, CZ, Italy

    Giorgio Gasparini

Authors
  1. Ivan De Martino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rocco D’Apolito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander S. McLawhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Keith A. Fehring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter K. Sculco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giorgio Gasparini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan De Martino.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Social Media and Orthopedics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Martino, I., D’Apolito, R., McLawhorn, A.S. et al. Social media for patients: benefits and drawbacks. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10, 141–145 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9394-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9394-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation