The Role of Online Behavioural Classification in the Regulation of Social and Professional Networks in Medicine
|
If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL). |
Abstract
As interactive entities, Social and Professional Networks (SPNs) attract a broad variety of different personalities, which may or may not be reflective of individuals’ real-world personas. Whilst most contributions to these communities are positive and constructive, there is equal opportunity for negativity and destructive behaviours. These behaviours could have dire consequences, both personally and professionally. This is particularly the case in the medical sphere, given that it is an esteemed profession with a reputation and public trust to maintain. Indeed there have been many well-publicized instances of improper online behaviour by healthcare professionals.
It can be difficult for professional regulators such as the General Medical Council (GMC) to keep up with the evolution of Web 2.0. Current guidelines concerning interactions with SPNs amongst medical professionals are inconsistent and seemingly drawn from variable standards. It can therefore be challenging, not only for an individual to know how to manage online interactions appropriately, but also for moderators to know what action to take in instances of potential online misconduct.
Behavioural classification may be useful here. A literature review was conducted to discover whether systems of online behavioural classification are existent and how they work. These could be of benefit in the development of more rigorous guidelines. They might also, if appropriate, be applied to individuals or groups to aid in dealing with potential online misconduct.
Despite a burgeoning interest in the psychology of online behaviour, there are few classification systems described in the literature. They seem, given their quantitative nature, poorly suited to individual application and better suited to assessing whole-community statistics or interaction patterns. However, some provide objective, accessible markers of behaviour which can be used to give an indication of different personality types and their relative proportions. These can give context to posts by individuals and feed into the development of tools to deal with inappropriate material.
Future research should focus on developing rigorous qualitative measures of behaviour. Arbiters such as the GMC could then assess exemplar posts for their nature and content to aid remedial decision making. By whatever means, classification of behaviour is important as a method of understanding the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of online behaviour. Important also is an awareness of what constitutes positive and negative behaviour, as careless moderation of inappropriate online behaviour can create bigger problems. It will be intriguing to see how research evolves and what impact this has on internet use and its moderation in medicine.
It can be difficult for professional regulators such as the General Medical Council (GMC) to keep up with the evolution of Web 2.0. Current guidelines concerning interactions with SPNs amongst medical professionals are inconsistent and seemingly drawn from variable standards. It can therefore be challenging, not only for an individual to know how to manage online interactions appropriately, but also for moderators to know what action to take in instances of potential online misconduct.
Behavioural classification may be useful here. A literature review was conducted to discover whether systems of online behavioural classification are existent and how they work. These could be of benefit in the development of more rigorous guidelines. They might also, if appropriate, be applied to individuals or groups to aid in dealing with potential online misconduct.
Despite a burgeoning interest in the psychology of online behaviour, there are few classification systems described in the literature. They seem, given their quantitative nature, poorly suited to individual application and better suited to assessing whole-community statistics or interaction patterns. However, some provide objective, accessible markers of behaviour which can be used to give an indication of different personality types and their relative proportions. These can give context to posts by individuals and feed into the development of tools to deal with inappropriate material.
Future research should focus on developing rigorous qualitative measures of behaviour. Arbiters such as the GMC could then assess exemplar posts for their nature and content to aid remedial decision making. By whatever means, classification of behaviour is important as a method of understanding the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of online behaviour. Important also is an awareness of what constitutes positive and negative behaviour, as careless moderation of inappropriate online behaviour can create bigger problems. It will be intriguing to see how research evolves and what impact this has on internet use and its moderation in medicine.
Medicine 2.0® is happy to support and promote other conferences and workshops in this area. Contact us to produce, disseminate and promote your conference or workshop under this label and in this event series. In addition, we are always looking for hosts of future World Congresses. Medicine 2.0® is a registered trademark of JMIR Publications Inc., the leading academic ehealth publisher.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.