Background: As we are witnessing the evolution of social media (SM) use worldwide among the general population, the popularity of SM has also been embraced by health care professionals (HCPs). In the context of SM evolution and exponential growth of users, this scoping review summarizes recent findings of the e-professionalism of HCPs.Objective: The purpose of this scoping review is to characterize the recent original peer-reviewed research studies published between November 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, on e-professionalism of HCPs; to assess the quality of the methodologies and approaches used; to explore the impact of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs; to recognize the benefits and dangers of SM; and to provide insights to guide future research in this area.Methods: A search of the literature published from November 1, 2014, to December 31, 2020, was performed in January 2021 using 3 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus). The searches were conducted using the following defined search terms: “professionalism” AND “social media” OR “social networks” OR “Internet” OR “Facebook” OR “Twitter” OR “Instagram” OR “TikTok.” The search strategy was limited to studies published in English. This scoping review follows the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.Results: Of the 1632 retrieved papers, a total of 88 studies were finally included in this review. Overall, the quality of the studies was satisfactory. Participants in the reviewed studies were from diverse health care professions. Medical health professionals were involved in about three-quarters of the studies. Three key benefits of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs were identified: (1) professional networking and collaboration, (2) professional education and training, and (3) patient education and health promotion. For the selected studies, there were five recognized dangers of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs: (1) loosening accountability, (2) compromising confidentiality, (3) blurred professional boundaries, (4) depiction of unprofessional behavior, and (5) legal issues and disciplinary consequences. This scoping review also recognizes recommendations for changes in educational curricula regarding e-professionalism as opportunities for improvement and barriers that influence HCPs use of SM in the context of e-professionalism.Conclusions: Findings in the reviewed studies indicate the existence of both benefits and dangers of SM on e-professionalism of HCPs. Even though there are some barriers recognized, this review has highlighted existing recommendations for including e-professionalism in the educational curricula of HCPs. Based on all evidence provided, this review provided new insights and guides for future research on this area. There is a clear need for robust research to investigate new emerging SM platforms, the efficiency of guidelines and educational interventions, and the specifics of each profession regarding their SM potential and use.

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.

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to explore antibiotic prescribing practices for dental implant placement in Croatia. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study including dentists in Croatia who perform dental implant therapy. The questionnaire assessed the dentists’ age, working experience, education level, and whether they use antibiotics for dental implant placement, as well as the choice of antibiotics, timing, and reasons for antibiotics use. We used snowball and convenient sampling methods for recruiting dentists. Categorical data were described as absolute numbers and percentages. Differences in the use of antibiotics for specific health conditions were analyzed using Chi-Square, with p < 0.05. Results: Overall, 74 dentists completed the survey. The dentists used antibiotics either before and after (N = 37, 48.7%), before (N = 21; 27.6%), or after dental implant placement (N = 17, 22.4%). Most used Amoxicillin (N = 47, 61.8%), or Amoxicillin–clavulanic acid (N = 22, 28.9%). Almost all dentists used antibiotics in patients with artificial heart valves (N = 73, 97.3%) and a history of infective endocarditis (N = 74, 98.7%). Also, the dentists reported using antibiotics in patients with artificial joints (N = 52, 69.3%), diabetes (N = 48, 64%), HIV (N = 51, 34.2%), or those on antiresorptive drugs (N = 46, 61.3%), with 17 dentists (22.7%) prescribing antibiotics to all (p < 0.001). The main reasons for antibiotic prophylaxis were preventing complications at the implant site (N = 56; 73.7%) and reducing the early implant failure rate (N = 32; 42.1%). Around one-third of the dentists (34.2%) used antibiotics for their own safety. Conclusions: Croatian dentists may be overprescribing antibiotics during dental implant placement. Clear recommendations concerning antibiotic prophylaxis for dental implant therapy are needed to make well-informed clinical decisions.

BACKGROUND Social media (SM) has infiltrated all levels of the healthcare profession with students being at the forefront. Professional behavior on the internet, or “e-professionalism”, is paramount for adequate usage of SM for students, and their interaction with patients online. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study were to describe and compare SM use by medical and dental students. We also wanted to assess and compare differences in attitudes between medical and dental students on e-professionalism, determine their opinion on potentially unprofessional behavior and posts and their interaction with patients on SM. METHODS A quantitative cross-sectional questionnaire study on the use of SM and attitudes about e-professionalism of students was carried out in the School of Medicine University of Zagreb, Croatia and the School of Dental Medicine University of Zagreb, Croatia. RESULTS Of the 714 collected responses 698 entered final analysis (411 medical and 287 dental students). Facebook (99%) and Instagram (80.7%) were the most commonly used SM. Unprofessional content was recognized both by medical and dental students with most interesting significant differences between groups when asked which of the following types of posts/behaviors (posted on SM) do they consider unprofessional: post with patient photos (61% dental vs. 89.8% medical, χ21=81.547, P<.001), interaction with a patient not revealing any personal identifiable information (23% dental vs. 41.8% medical, χ21=26.729, P<.001); advertising of pharmaceutical or health products without disclosing conflict of interest (26.8% dental vs. 41.1% medical, χ21=15.121, P<.001); critical comments about faculty (53% dental vs. 39.7% medical, χ21=12.076, P=.001); critical comments about teaching materials, study program, school, or university (36.2% dental vs. 25.1% medical, χ21=10.118, P=.001). Dental students believe significantly more that people have the opportunity to post photos and document aspects of their professional life which would otherwise remain private (89.5% dental vs. 84.2% medical, χ21= 4.132, P=.026), and that they should be able to do what they want online (68.3% dental vs. 60.8% medical, χ21= 4.083, P=.043). Dental students are also more open to communication through social media than medical students (39.7% dental vs. 16.3% medical, χ22=81.686, P<.001), will (41.5% dental vs. 12.2% medical, χ24= 87.344, P<.001) and have (28.2% dental vs. 5.6% medical, χ21=68.235, P<.001) accepted friend request/follow/track from patients more readily, and even sent friend requests/follow/track their patients (5.2% dental vs. 1.2% medical χ21=9.763, P=.002). CONCLUSIONS Social media use is ubiquitous among the studied student population. Awareness of e-professionalism is relatively high for both student groups with dental students being more desensitized to visual representations of patients, and more prone to interaction with patients on SM. Medical students are more open to criticism of school program and faculty. Our research also highlights previous findings that both student groups would find useful the existence of guidelines about e-professionalism.