Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Dec 24, 2019
Date Accepted: Sep 15, 2020

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Recommendations From the Twitter Hashtag #DoctorsAreDickheads: Qualitative Analysis

Sharma AE, Mann Z, Cherian R, Del Rosario JB, Yang J, Sarkar U

Recommendations From the Twitter Hashtag #DoctorsAreDickheads: Qualitative Analysis

J Med Internet Res 2020;22(10):e17595

DOI: 10.2196/17595

PMID: 33112246

PMCID: 7652212

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

“The real question is why someone had to say #DoctorsAreDickheads to be heard”: Qualitative analysis of a Twitter hashtag

  • Anjana Estelle Sharma; 
  • Ziva Mann; 
  • Roy Cherian; 
  • Jan Bing Del Rosario; 
  • Janine Yang; 
  • Urmimala Sarkar

ABSTRACT

Background:

The social media site Twitter has 145 million daily active users worldwide, and has become a popular forum for users to communicate their healthcare concerns and experiences as patients. In the fall of 2018, a hashtag titled #DoctorsAreDickheads emerged, with almost 40,000 posts calling attention to healthcare experiences.

Objective:

We sought to identify common healthcare conditions and conceptual themes represented within the phenomenon of this viral Twitter hashtag.

Methods:

We analyzed a random 5% sample (N=500) of available tweets for qualitative analysis between the dates October 15 2018 – December 31st 2018, when the hashtag was most active. We dual coded 20% of the sample, and the remainder individually. We abstracted the user’s healthcare role and clinical conditions from the tweet and user profile, and utilized a phenomenological content analysis to identify prevalent conceptual themes through sequential open coding, memoing, and discussion of concepts until agreement was reached.

Results:

Our final sample comprised 491 tweets and 282 unique Twitter users. In our sample, 49.8% were from patients or patient advocates, 4.3% caregivers, 9.4% healthcare professionals, 3.5% journalists/media; 1.4% academic/researchers, and 31.6% non-healthcare individuals/other. The most commonly mentioned clinical conditions were chronic pain, mental health, and musculoskeletal conditions (mainly Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome). We identified three major themes: disbelief in patients’ experience and knowledge which contributes to medical errors and harm; the power differential between patients and providers; and metacommentary on the meaning and impact of the #DoctorsAreDickheads hashtag.

Conclusions:

People publicly disclose personal and often troubling healthcare experiences on social media. This adds new accountability for the patient-provider interaction, and shapes the public’s viewpoint of how clinicians behave. Hashtags such as this offer valuable opportunities to learn from patient experiences. Recommendations include developing best practices for providers to improve communication, supporting patients through challenging diagnoses, and promoting patient engagement.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Sharma AE, Mann Z, Cherian R, Del Rosario JB, Yang J, Sarkar U

Recommendations From the Twitter Hashtag #DoctorsAreDickheads: Qualitative Analysis

J Med Internet Res 2020;22(10):e17595

DOI: 10.2196/17595

PMID: 33112246

PMCID: 7652212

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.