I suspect that in the next couple of years we’ll see the emergence of a viable social network for physicians. It hasn’t happened yet but I suspect that we’re getting close. Physicians are increasingly dabbling in mainstream social sites.
But maybe that’s a problem. After all, a doctor can only hang in so many places. If you have “The Facebook for Doctors” do you expect us to spend our time there instead of on Facebook itself? Maybe we will, and maybe we won’t.
Beyond the obvious requirement of a network to deliver value, I think the rate-limiting factor is old-fashioned bandwidth. You can only be one place at a time. If I spend my days on Twitter I’m not likely to spend my days on said doctor’s network.
I will go there for particular things and to talk to certain people about specific issues. But like most doctors I’m not sure I can tell you exactly what I want. I’ll know it when I see it. (Actually I do, but I’m keeping it tip-top secret)
When I speak to doctors about social media I discuss the importance of choosing properties. Where are you going to live or where are you going to have that dialog between your practice and your patients or you and your colleagues. I spend most of my time here on this blog as well as on Twitter. I just don’t have the time for video, podcasting or even a big presence on Facebook. I do what my budget allows.
And if you think with your new network you’re going to convert high profile docs like Kevin Pho, Wes Fisher, Rob Lamberts, Berci or Wendy Swanson off of Twitter onto “The Facebook for Doctors,” think again. This is where these guys live in the very limited amount of non-clinical time that they have. These public networks are critical pipelines for their readers. These early adopters are likely to see LinkedIn as their home profile rather than whatever the next network creates.
Of course the motivation of the social physician intelligentsia is quite different from the demographic that network builders seek. The money’s with that curious but socially naive internist in Grand Rapids who hasn’t put down roots. This is Joe MD. And he’s got friends.
Ultimately I think all of this social expansion will amount to something of a land grab for physician attention. While there will be competition from the public applications, there’s incredible opportunity for whoever builds the thing compelling enough to bring us over.
Icon via Artua
{ 8 comments }
I have recently discovered your blog and have really enjoyed the posts to date. The lack of time is a major challenge for doctors curious about social engagement. It can, of coarse also be an easy excuse not to try at all. Fortunately, in the case of where a doctor spends their time is not something that can’t be handled through good design and API’s. Great topic and a serious challenge. I look forward to more of your incite.
Agree. I blog so I can get out of “the doctor’s lounge.” The goal is to NOT spend time with a bunch of other doctors and NOT get grouped with folks who you might otherwise avoid (see Sermo). The benefit of social media is that it’s social. If we docs cloister ourselves, even if it is with the intent of outreach, we end up looking elitist. I, for one, would not think about going to a “Facebook for Doctors.”
Yes, indeed. In fact, it’s so interesting to see what docs to in public social applications: we don’t talk about medicine. I do think that there should be a space for us to connect – especially for idiot savant microspecialists like myself. So I, for one, would not rule out membership.
But I hear ya. I’ll notify the authorities to cancel the “Facebook for Doctors.”
Even for this non-physician, “stay at home mom” bloggers this is true! Choosing how to allocate our time is always a top priority.
(and I don’t have to worry about covering sick patients, just the occasionally sick kiddo)
Someday, Sharon, It’ll sink in that there are people other than doctors reading this blog. Thanks for reminding me. And you have one of the hardest jobs in the world….
Very interesting and timely post. I’ve been considering the idea of launching a network of doctor’s blogs. It’s really kind of an extension of a partnership I started with a doctor to write this blog: http://www.wiredemrdoctor.com I’ve been debating the best way to expand this since I’ve had a number of other doctors interested in doing something similar. I’m debating whether to launch a network of blogs for doctors and other healthcare IT people which could or could not be connected or to do that plus a social network of sorts.
Since EMR is my focus, I’ve considered even adding on an EMR ratings area or even hosting forums for each EMR vendor so that users of that software could interact. Would that eventually lead to doctors blogging and socializing about medicine? I don’t know, but these are some of the things I’m considering. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on it.
Like you, I think others would like to have a blog like yours to share their thoughts. Being on a network with others doing the same and with the marketing tools I’ve built could be pretty interesting to watch grow.
You provide interesting thoughts on an interesting topic. I am a “social media” doctor that has been in the game a lot longer than the “early” adopters listed above so I hope to provide an old-timer’s viewpoint.
With time comes both experience and changing priorities so my choice in the parts of the internet (Minitel, ARPANET, Usenet, Web 2.0, etc.) I frequent has changed over the decades. I have properties on many different (social media) websites and each is used for a specific purpose. These days I am active on many services. I use Twitter for news updates, Facebook for real-world friends and family, various IM clients for a quick chat, video calls for close family, IRC for general chat, various forums for specific discussion with experts/enthusiast, and the list goes on.
Time is certainly a part of the equation but it does not fully explain why I have moved around. I used to be on Myspace when it was a data storage site, moved to Friendster, back onto the revamped social media version of Myspace, and then Facebook. I went where my friends and family would set up shop or where fellow enthusiasts had discovered something worth using.
In fact, a friend told me to open a TheFacebook account back in 2004 and I responded, “Why would I want to that?” I did the moment my still-active university email domain was accepted but it took a long time before it caught on with people my age. Until that point, I spent my online time elsewhere.
As the transitions from social media site to social media site continued, I was never able to close old accounts because a significant number of people would not move. This fragmentation had a benefit because it allowed me to separate the various people in my life based on the timeframe we started interacting online. In essence, a level of privacy was built in as I compartmentalized people. As more people joined the fold, I was able to separate them out appropriately.
This phenomenon is no different than the evolution of instant messaging networks. I have accounts on all the major networks and many small ones because people did not move onto the newest product. As people were introduced to the internet, they made accounts with the sites their real-life social circles patronized and began their journey from there.
There are still significant geographic, educational, socioeconomic, and professional concentrations on certain social websites. Facebook has done a lot to integrate these “social media barrios” as they opened their doors to the general public. This move has made the lives of socialites much easier but there are still issues with trying to stay in touch with everyone and the blurring of boundaries has privacy implications. This means I will keep multiple profiles open and use each one for a specific purpose or group of people.
I may make an account on a “The Facebook for Doctors” but there has to be some value in using it otherwise it will serve as a placeholder. At this point I do not see any reason why I would want to participate in such a site. However, if enough people moved to reach “critical mass” in terms of discussion, shared content, or even the target demographic with a must-use piece of technology then I may been inclined to actively visit. Until then, the sites I use right now serve my needs well but this could change very quickly.
As an experiment, DrV, you could create a doctor social network on Ning and see how many people join. It is very easy to do but I am not sure how many will actively participate. Finally, with the release of Diaspora I have a feeling we may start to see the reemergence of the “social media barrio” but with far more interconnection than before. This may obviate the need for monolithic sites like Facebook and Twitter to spur the next social revolution based on data portability or it may fizzle out due to complexity.
Until this is a viable option, doctors should choose the site best suited to achieve their goals online and make sure that others they want to interact with are also active participants. The days of a free-for-all land grab is not as possible as it was in the past. I would go as far as to say that even if a subset of “high profile doctors” moved then I doubt current users would fully transition away from their current hangouts — I certainly would not.
Have you seen: https://www.doximity.com/ I saw them when I attended AAFP and I saw some value in what they were building and how they were working to connect doctors. Pretty smart to do it all mobile too.
{ 1 trackback }