1. Facebook Attitudes and Behaviors of Students and Therapists in the Professional Fields of Facebook Attitudes and Behaviors of Students and Therapists in the Professional Fields of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech Language Pathology Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech Language Pathology Elyse Connors, MA, Thomas Sather, MA, Amy Yorke, MPT, and Amy Curtis, PhD PhD Program in Interdisciplinary Health Sciences RESULTSINTRODUCTION DISCUSSION PURPOSE METHODS REFERENCES CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS Study Goal: To examine Facebook attitudes and behaviors of students and therapists in the field of PT, OT, and SLP Methods: Study data was collected by use of electronic survey. Link for survey was posted on Facebook pages of the APTA, AOTA, ASHA. Results: Therapists and students demonstrate similar attitudes and behaviors regarding accountability and accuracy of personal profile. Differences existed between the groups on friending and posting behaviors. Conclusions: As the utilization of Facebook increases, health care providers and students need to be aware of the potential professional implications. Online social networking such as Facebook (Fb) allows users to generate an individual profile and share written postings, photos, and videos with other Fb subscribers. 1 Health Care Providers (HCP) have expectations of upholding professional behavior. There are numerous reports of HCPs losing their job secondary to unprofessional Fb postings. Current research on Fb use within health care has focused on medical students 2, pharmacy students 3, and academic administrators 4-5. There have been no studies looking specifically at the rehabilitative fields of PT, OT, and SLP or comparing students to therapists. Research question : Are there differences in Fb attitudes and behaviors of students and therapists in PT, OT, and SLP. Design: Survey research utilizing Qualtrics™ software. Survey consisted of a maximum of 16 yes/no questions. Survey used was modified slightly from a survey previously utilized in pharmacy students. 3 Sample: Convenience sample of graduate students and therapists in the professional fields of PT, OT, and SLP. Procedures: Study description and survey link were posted on the Fb pages of the APTA, AOTA, and ASHA. Survey was open for 5 weeks. Statistics: Descriptive and logistic regression controlling for the confounding variables of age and professional status. RESULTS Demographics: Survey questions and response frequencies Behavior Survey QuestionTherapistStudent Yes No. (%) No No. (%) Yes No. (%) No No. (%) Do you use the privacy setting available in Facebook to limit public access to your information? 88 (96.7%) 3 (3.3%)82 (100%) 0 (0%) Have you ever provided any “information” on Facebook that you would not want a potential employer to view? 34 (37.4%) 57 (62.6%) 44 (53.7%) 38 (46.3%) Have you ever provided any “information” on Facebook that you would not want a faculty member/employer to view? 23 (25.3%) 68 (74.7%) 39 (47.6%) 43 (52.4%) Have you ever provided any “information on Facebook that you would not want a patient to view? 44 (48.4%) 47 (51.6%) 46 (56.1%) 36 (43.9%) Have you had a faculty member/employer use Facebook to “friend” you? If yes, did you accept? 26 (28.6%) 22 (84.6%) 65 (71.4%) 4 (15.4%) 36 (43.9%) 35 (97.2%) 46 (56.1%) 1 (2.8%) Have you had a patient use Facebook to friend you? If yes, did you accept? 30 (33.0%) 16 (53.3%) 61 (67.0%) 14 (46.7%) 10 (12.2%) 5 (50.0%) 72 (87.8%) 5 (50.0%) Attitude Survey QuestionTherapistStudent Yes No. (%) No No. (%) Yes No. (%) No No. (%) Should a student/therapist be accountable for an illegal act discovered through Facebook postings? 75 (82.4%) 16 (17.6%) 73 (89.0%)9 (11.0%) Should a student/therapist be accountable for unprofessional behavior discovered through Facebook postings? 56 (61.5%) 35 (38.5%) 54 (65.9%)28 (34.1%) If an employer of a therapy student graduate/therapist chose to review a prospective employee’s Facebook site, should the profile information be considered when making a hiring decision? 57 (62.6%) 34 (37.4%) 36 (43.9%)46 (56.1%) Does the image you present online through Facebook accurate present who you are as a person? 87 (95.6%) 4 (4.4%)66 (80.5%)16 (19.5%) Does the image you present online through Facebook accurately present who you are as a future/current professional? 57 (62.6%) 34 (37.4%) 47 (57.3%)35 (42.7%) Do you feel that photos, groups, postings, comments, and other information posted on Facebook affect people’s opinion of you as a professional health care provider? 64 (70.3%) 27 (29.7%) 57 (69.5%)25 (30.5%) Should professional students/therapists be held to higher standards than others regarding the image they portray on Facebook? 40 (44.0%) 51 (56.0%) 38 (46.3%)44 (53.7%) Would you want a faculty member/employer to use Facebook to “friend” you? 15 (16.5%) 76 (83.5%) 41 (50.0%) Results for crude and adjusted logistic regression analysis *Indicates significant at the p <.05 level ** indicates significant at the p <.01 level Similarities between Therapists and Students: Accountability for an illegal act discovered through Fb posting Accountability for an unprofessional act discovered through Fb posting Fb image accurately represents self as a professional Fb postings affect peoples opinions of the health care professional Differences between Therapists and Students: Age was a statistically significant predictor of posting behavior on Fb. As respondents get older, they are more likely to have posted something on Fb that they would not want a potential employer, faculty member/current employer, or patient to view. Differences between Therapists and Students: Areas where professional status as a statistically significant predictor Therapist are 6.93 times more likely to say their Fb image represents them accurately as a person. Students are 3.70 times more likely to want a faculty member “friend” them versus a therapist wanting their employer to friend them. Therapist are 2.89 times more likely to have had a patient ask to “friend” them. Several similarities and significant differences are noted between graduate students and therapists in regard to Fb attitudes and behaviors. Both groups felt their own Fb profiles more accurately reflected themselves personally than professionally, raising the issue of motivation and purpose for Fb use. The issue of professional identity in one’s Fb profile takes on greater relevance given the frequency of human resources departments using social media profiles in hiring decisions. Friending behaviors are noted to be significantly different among the two groups and may be potentially influenced by intent of Fb usage. In the healthcare environment, patients have become more active in their healthcare management and in searching out information regarding their providers, including using Fb to establish relationships. Key Findings: Significant differences exist among Fb attitudes and behaviors between students and therapists. Similarities also exist among Fb attitudes and behaviors between students and therapists. Factors of motivation and membership intent influence posting behavior. The context of Facebook leads to the potential for conflict of one’s personal and professional image for both students and therapists. The utility and access of Fb make it a potential resource for employers and patients to gather information about HCP. Limitations: Convenience sample, self-report, generalizability Recommendations: It is recommended that institutions carefully review and formulate existing policies of professionalism and utilization of Fb. Factor analysis would be beneficial to explore relevant constructs concerning Fb attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, further investigation of other disciplines, academic programs, and employers of HCP would provide further information on the utilization of Fb and the impact on HCP, students, academicians, and employers. Disciplines Gender Professional Status Professional Status by Discipline *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 1.Facebook. Facebook Statistics. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Facebook-statistics/119768528069029. Accessibility verified April 23, 2011. https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Facebook-statistics/119768528069029. Accessibility verified April 23 2.Garner J, O’Sullivan H. Facebook and the professional behaviors of undergraduate medical students. The Clinical Teacher. 2010;7(2):112-115. 3.Cain J, Scott DR, Akers P. Pharmacy students’ Facebook Activity and opinions regarding accountability and e-professionalism. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(6). 4.Cain J, Scorr DR, Smith K. Use of social media by residency program directors for resident selection. American Journal Health-System Pharmacy. 2010:67:1635-1639. 5.Chretien, KC, Greysen SR, Chretien JP, Kind T. Online posting of unprofessional content by medical students. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1309. Crude analysis Adjusted analysis Prof Status Age Prof Status Age Question Odds ratio (95% CI) Odds ratio (95% CI) Odds ratio (95% CI) Odds ratio (95% CI) Accountable for illegal.578 (.240,1.390) 1.009 (.960, 1.061).555 (.212, 1.455).994 (.939,1.053) Accountable for unprofessional.830 (.445,1.545).972 (.933, 1.012).619 (.307, 1.248).959 (.915,1.004) Use in hiring decisions 2.142(1.165,3.938).946 (.907,.986) 1.622 (.826, 3.183).959 (.917,1.003) Privacy settings.000 (.000, ----).926 (.744, 1.133).000 (.000, ---).794 (.541,1.166) Accurate presentation/person **5.273(1.684, 16.510).974 (.913, 1.040) **6.393 (1.781, 22.946) 1.025 (.958,1.097) Accuracy as professional 1.248 (.678, 2.297).990 (.953, 1.028) 1.202 (.611, 2.366).995 (.954,1.037) Affect peoples opinion 1.040 (.542, 1.993) 1.000 (.961, 1.041) 1.053 (.511, 2.169) 1.002(.959, 1.047) Postings/potential employer *.515 (.281,.946) *1.088 (1.038, 1.1.41).851 (.427, 1.695) **1.083(1.029,1.140) Postings: faculty/employer **.373 (.196,.708) **1.084 (1.030, 1.141).543 (.266, 1.107) *1.063 (1.007,1.122) Postings: clients.733 (.402,1.334) 1.007 (.933, 1.087) 1.000(.510, 1.960) *1.046(1.002,1.902) Hold to a high standard.908 (.499, 1.654).990 (.954, 1.026).809 (.915, 1.579).984 (.945, 1.025) Desire faculty/employ to friend **.197 (.098,.399) **1.097 (1.037, 1.160) **.266 (.124,.574) 1.065 (.993, 1.113) Has a faculty/employ friended *.511(.272,.960) **1.074 (1.023, 1.125).760 (.375, 1.540) *1.065(1.010,1.123) Did you accept “friend”.157(.016, 1.499) 1.061 (.956, 1.178).164 (.013, 2.031) 1.005 (.882,1.146) Has a patient “friended” **3.541(1.603, 7.824) *.950 (.912,.989) *2.893 (1.231, 6.798).972(.929, 1.016) Did you accept 1.143 (.273, 4.786) 1.006 (.939, 1.078) 1.359 (.234, 7.909) 1.014 (.932, 1.104)