Medical professionalism: an experimental look at physicians’ Facebook profiles

Figures & data

Table 1 Number of participants randomly assigned to experimental conditions

	Profile type
	Professional	Personal/healthy	Personal/unhealthy
Male physician	46	40	47	n=133
Female physician	40	39	38	n=117
	n=86	n=79	n=85	N=250

Table 2 Demographics of participants who completed and met criteria for inclusion in the study

Variable	n (%)
Gender (n, %)
Male	77 (30.8)
Female	173 (69.2)
Race/ethnicity (n, %)
Asian	6 (2.4)
Black or African American	1 (0.4)
Hispanic or Latino	7 (2.8)
American Indian or Alaska Native	1 (0.4)
White or European American	221 (88.4)
Multiracial	8 (3.2)
Rather not say	6 (2.4)
Attending college (n, %)	218 (87.2)
Visits to primary care physician (n, %)
Never	14 (5.6)
Less than once a year	124 (49.6)
One to three times a year	94 (37.6)
More than three times a year	18 (7.2)
Age (years; M±SD)	23.4±7.6
Min, Max	18, 66

Fig. 1.  First impressions of medical professionalism ratings by profile type.

Table 3 ANOVA results for FIMP ratings of individual physicians and physicians in general

	df	F	ηp ^2	p
Individual physician
Profile type	2	54.77	0.31	<0.001*
Physician sex	1	5.04	0.02	0.026*
Profile type/sex interaction	2	0.50	0.004	0.609
Physicians in general
Profile type	2	0.37	0.004	0.691
Physician sex	1	0.62	0.001	0.431
Profile type/sex interaction	2	0.63	0.002	0.543

*denotes a statistically significant finding.