Curating a Digital Identity: What Urologists Need to Know About Social Media

Urology

Volumn 97, Issue , 2016, Pages 5-7

  Mata, Douglas A ^a   Tilak, Gaurie ^b   Loeb, Stacy ^c   Ramasamy, Ranjith ^d  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI MILLER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER INTERFACE; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PUBLIC RELATIONS; SCREENING; SOCIAL MEDIA; UROLOGIST; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; ETHICS; STANDARDS;

CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; SOCIAL MEDIA; UROLOGISTS;

EID: 84994735213     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.06.020     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. 1 Jain, S.H., Practicing medicine in the age of Facebook. N Engl J Med 361 (2009), 649–651, 10.1056/NEJMp0901277.
2. 2 DeCamp, M., Koenig, T.W., Chisolm, M.S., Social media and physicians' online identity crisis. JAMA 310 (2013), 581–582, 10.1001/jama.2013.8238.
3. 3 Lagu, T., Greysen, S.R., Physician, monitor thyself: professionalism and accountability in the use of social media. J Clin Ethics 22 (2011), 187–190.
4. 4 Gill, B.C., Zampini, A.M., Mehta, N.B., Digital identity: develop one before you're given one. Urology 85 (2015), 1219–1222, 10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.056.
5. 5 Fox, S., Duggan, M., One in three American adults have gone online to figure out a medical condition. Pew Res Cent Internet Sci Tech, 2013 Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/ accessed May 22, 2016.
6. 6 Semigran, H.L., Linder, J.A., Gidengil, C., Mehrotra, A., Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study. BMJ, 351, 2015, h3480.
7. 7 Mata, D.A., Harvard University Scholarly Profile. Available at http://scholar.harvard.edu/dmata/ accessed May 22, 2016.
8. 8 Thangasamy, I.A., Leveridge, M., Davies, B.J., Finelli, A., Stork, B., Woo, H.H., International Urology Journal Club via Twitter: 12-month experience. Eur Urol 66 (2014), 112–117, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.034.
9. 9 Wilkinson, S.E., Basto, M.Y., Perovic, G., Lawrentschuk, N., Murphy, D.G., The social media revolution is changing the conference experience: analytics and trends from eight international meetings. BJU Int 115 (2015), 839–846, 10.1111/bju.12910.
10. 10 Prabhu, V., Lee, T., Loeb, S., et al. Twitter response to the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening with prostate-specific antigen. BJU Int 116 (2015), 65–71, 10.1111/bju.12748.
11. 11 Rouprêt, M., Morgan, T.M., Bostrom, P.J., et al. European Association of Urology (@Uroweb) recommendations on the appropriate use of social media. Eur Urol 66 (2014), 628–632, 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.046.
12. 12 Murphy, D.G., Loeb, S., Basto, M.Y., et al. Engaging responsibly with social media: the BJUI guidelines. BJU Int 114 (2014), 9–11, 10.1111/bju.12788.
13. 13 American Urological Association, Social Media Best Practices. Available at https://www.auanet.org/press-media/social-media-bp.cfm accessed May 22, 2016.
14. 14 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, For Industry: Using Social Media. Available at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDER/ucm397791.htm accessed May 22, 2016.