Reply

Hardouin, Scott; Cheng, Thomas W.; Mitchell, Erica L.; Raulli, Stephen J.; Jones, Douglas L.; Siracuse, Jeffrey J.; Farber, Alik

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2020.08.020

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the paper by Hardouin et al [ 22 ] was retracted with justifications, it has started the #medbikini movement [ 33 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 ]. Numerous media articles presented the paper by Hardouin et al [ 22 ] as an example of creepy stalking [ 25 , 73 - 75 ], but viewing publicly available information about physicians or HCPs at SM is done by patients or employers, with benefits or consequences, either to their image or their careers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defining Potentially Unprofessional Behavior on Social Media for Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study

Rukavina¹,

Poplašen²,

Majer³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Social media presence among health care professionals is ubiquitous and largely beneficial for their personal and professional lives. New standards are forming in the context of e-professionalism, which are loosening the predefined older and offline terms. With these benefits also come dangers, with exposure to evaluation on all levels from peers, superiors, and the public, as witnessed in the #medbikini movement. Objective The objectives of this study were to develop an improved coding scheme (SMePROF coding scheme) for the assessment of unprofessional behavior on Facebook of medical or dental students and faculty, compare reliability between coding schemes used in previous research and SMePROF coding scheme, compare gender-based differences for the assessment of the professional content on Facebook, validate the SMePROF coding scheme, and assess the level of and to characterize web-based professionalism on publicly available Facebook profiles of medical or dental students and faculty. Methods A search was performed via a new Facebook account using a systematic probabilistic sample of students and faculty in the University of Zagreb School of Medicine and School of Dental Medicine. Each profile was subsequently assessed with regard to professionalism based on previously published criteria and compared using the SMePROF coding scheme developed for this study. Results Intercoder reliability increased when the SMePROF coding scheme was used for the comparison of gender-based coding results. Results showed an increase in the gender-based agreement of the final codes for the category professionalism, from 85% in the first phase to 96.2% in the second phase. Final results of the second phase showed that there was almost no difference between female and male coders for coding potentially unprofessional content for students (7/240, 2.9% vs 5/203, 2.5%) or for coding unprofessional content for students (11/240, 4.6% vs 11/203, 5.4%). Comparison of definitive results between the first and second phases indicated an understanding of web-based professionalism, with unprofessional content being very low, both for students (9/222, 4.1% vs 12/206, 5.8%) and faculty (1/25, 4% vs 0/23, 0%). For assessment of the potentially unprofessional content, we observed a 4-fold decrease, using the SMePROF rubric, for students (26/222, 11.7% to 6/206, 2.9%) and a 5-fold decrease for faculty (6/25, 24% to 1/23, 4%). Conclusions SMePROF coding scheme for assessing professionalism of health-care professionals on Facebook is a validated and more objective instrument. This research emphasizes the role that context plays in the perception of unprofessional and potentially unprofessional content and provides insight into the existence of different sets of rules for web-based and offline interaction that marks behavior as unprofessional. The level of e-professionalism on Facebook profiles of medical or dental students and faculty available for public viewing has shown a high level of understanding of e-professionalism.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Main differences comparing the Koo rubric and the SMePROF rubric for assessment of unprofessional content on FB are presented in Multimedia Appendix 4 [ 17 , 18 , 20 - 22 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Potentially Unprofessional Behavior on Social Media for Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study

Rukavina¹,

Poplašen²,

Majer³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The article has since been retracted, and the senior author and editors of the Journal of Vascular Surgery have written public apologies. 42,43 However, that the male editors sent this flawed and biased report for peer review, accepted it, and then asked a man to write the invited commentary is precisely why diversity must be present among the editors and editorial boards of journals.…”

Section: Methods For Reducing Bias In Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication bias is the consequence of a lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion

Rouan

Velazquez

Freischlag

et al. 2021

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publication bias has been shown to exist in research across medical and surgical specialties. Bias can occur at any stage of the publication process and can be related to race, ethnicity, age, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation. Although some improvements have been made toward addressing this issue, bias still spans the publication process from authors and peer reviewers, to editorial board members and editors, with poor inclusion of women and underrepresented minorities throughout. The result of bias remaining unchecked is the publication of research that leaves out certain groups, is not applicable to all people, and can result in harm to some populations. We have highlighted the current landscape of publication bias and strived to demonstrate the importance of addressing it. We have also provided solutions for reducing bias at multiple stages throughout the publication process. Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout all aspects of the publication process, requiring diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in reports, and providing specific education and guidelines will ensure the identification and eradication of publication bias. By following these measures, we hope that publication bias will be eliminated, which will reduce further harm to certain populations and promote better, more effective research pertinent to all people.

show abstract

“…The authors recognized the judgments they passed on the young vascular surgeons they screened for unprofessional behavior. 3 The JVS editors also expressed their regret and acknowledged the oversights in the peer review process with its inherent conscious and unconscious biases. 4 In the process, the authors and JVS editors suffered undue emotional harm and an overall negative impact on their professional reputation.…”

Section: Impact Of the Journal Of Vascular Surgery Publicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professionalism in (vascular) surgery: What does it mean?

Drudi

Woo

Ziegler

et al. 2021

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A publication in the August 2020 issue of the Journal of Vascular Surgery, "Prevalence of unprofessional social media content among young vascular surgeons," brought the concept of professionalism in the vascular surgery community to the forefront. In response to the methodology used in the article, and the definitions of professionalism, a global backlash from health care providers and lay people ensued. The article has since been retracted; however, its publication highlighted the need to reexamine current definitions and philosophies surrounding professionalism in medicine and surgery that may be discriminatory and exclusive. The term professionalism has no standard definition as evidenced by varying definitions among different societies and organizations. The lack of a structured, universally accepted definition of professionalism in the medical and surgical communities has resulted in no standard by which to measure the actions of physicians and surgeons. The definition of professionalism need not be complex and should not vary among specialties and societies. In its most simplistic form, the core definition of "professionalism" embedded in the volumes of publications, guidelines, and charters that exist on the subject of professionalism in medicine is respect. We propose a tiered approach to define professionalism in medicine that builds on fundamental principles of respect and inclusivity, and includes actionable steps at three levels: (1) individual, (2) organizational, and (3) societal. Through this approach, any physician, regardless of specialty, practice type or location, can apply these concepts to ensure they consistently embody what it means to be "professional." (

show abstract

Reply

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Defining Potentially Unprofessional Behavior on Social Media for Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study

Defining Potentially Unprofessional Behavior on Social Media for Health Care Professionals: Mixed Methods Study

Publication bias is the consequence of a lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion

Professionalism in (vascular) surgery: What does it mean?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About