JMIR Med Educ. 2024 Feb 27;10:e50156. doi: 10.2196/50156.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have predominantly measured e-professionalism through perceptions or attitudes, yet there exists no validated measure specifically targeting the actual behaviors of health care professionals (HCPs) in this realm. This study addresses this gap by constructing a normative framework, drawing from 3 primary sources to define e-professional behavior across 6 domains. Four domains pertain to the dangers of social networking sites (SNSs), encompassing confidentiality, privacy, patient interaction, and equitable resource allocation. Meanwhile, 2 domains focus on the opportunities of SNSs, namely, the proactive dissemination of public health information and maintaining scientific integrity.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and validate 2 new measures assessing the e-professional behavior of doctors of medicine (MDs) and doctors of dental medicine (DMDs), focusing on both the dangers and opportunities associated with SNSs.
METHODS: The study used a purposive sample of MDs and DMDs in Croatia who were users of at least one SNS. Data collection took place in 2021 through an online survey. Validation of both indexes used a formative approach, which involved a 5-step methodology: content specification, indicators definition with instructions for item coding and index construction, indicators collinearity check using the variance inflation factor (VIF), external validity test using multiple indicators multiple causes (MIMIC) model, and external validity test by checking the relationships of the indexes with the scale of attitude toward SNSs using Pearson correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: A total of 753 responses were included in the analysis. The first e-professionalism index, assessing the dangers associated with SNSs, comprises 14 items. During the indicators collinearity check, all indicators displayed acceptable VIF values below 2.5. The MIMIC model showed good fit (χ213=9.4, P=.742; χ2/df=0.723; root-mean-square error of approximation<.001; goodness-of-fit index=0.998; comparative fit index=1.000). The external validity of the index is supported by a statistically significant negative correlation with the scale measuring attitudes toward SNSs (r=-0.225, P<.001). Following the removal of 1 item, the second e-professionalism index, focusing on the opportunities associated with SNSs, comprises 5 items. During the indicators collinearity check, all indicators exhibited acceptable VIF values below 2.5. Additionally, the MIMIC model demonstrated a good fit (χ24=2.5, P=.718; χ2/df=0.637; root-mean-square error of approximation<0.001; goodness-of-fit index=0.999; comparative fit index=1.000). The external validity of the index is supported by a statistically significant positive correlation with the scale of attitude toward SNSs (r=0.338; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Following the validation process, the instrument designed for gauging the e-professional behavior of MDs and DMDs consists of 19 items, which contribute to the formation of 2 distinct indexes: the e-professionalism index, focusing on the dangers associated with SNSs, comprising 14 items, and the e-professionalism index, highlighting the opportunities offered by SNSs, consisting of 5 items. These indexes serve as valid measures of the e-professional behavior of MDs and DMDs, with the potential for further refinement to encompass emerging forms of unprofessional behavior that may arise over time.
PMID:38412021 | DOI:10.2196/50156
