The Influence of Modern Social Media on Dermatologist Selection by Patients

Abstract

Objective Social media have become the platform of choice for people seeking immediate access to information. They have become so ubiquitous and pervasive that many people are using them to research health care providers and communicate with them about their issues. This study looks into this phenomenon, focusing on how it affects people's thinking when deciding which doctor to see for skin-related concerns. Methodology A cross-sectional study was conducted among patients at Derma Clinic in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected using a validated self-administered questionnaire. A total of 365 patients were included in the analysis. Results Out of 365 participants, 44.9% visited the center for medical purposes, while 45.8% visited for cosmetic purposes. Sixty-six percent of the participants (n=241) went to a dermatologist they knew, and only 21% of those participants knew their dermatologist from social media (Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, and Telegram). About 44.54% preferred to know more about their dermatologists from Twitter, followed by Instagram 27.96%, Snapchat 24.64%, and Facebook 2.84%. A significant proportion of Instagram users came to the dermatology clinic for cosmetic purposes. Conclusion As per the findings of this study, we found the highest preferred way of knowing the doctor for medical or cosmetic purposes was through a friend, followed by a family member and social media. Although most of the participants still preferred to visit a dermatologist based on their friend's recommendation, social media offer patients a platform upon which to launch their search for a dermatologist. Among social media users, patients who visit dermatology clinics for medical reasons preferred Twitter, while those who came for cosmetic reasons preferred Instagram to follow their doctors, underlining the importance of aesthetic dermatology as a visual field.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.