English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It is a well-known fact that Social Media (SoMe) has changed, or maybe even revolutionized, the way people communicate, interact, behave and generally live, both in their professional and in their private lives. Among the many SoMe platforms available, Facebook is currently the most dominant; as of June 22nd 2017, it serves a community of some 2 billion content-generating users [1]. Urologists form a growing part of this community. They use this tool in an active, personal (private), and/or professional manner [2]. Loeb and colleagues reported that 74% of urologists use some SoMe platform, the most common being Facebook (93%) [3]. As SoMe has grown, the need to discern between the professional identity and personal (private) identity has become a significant issue. What image of the urological community is portrayed on Facebook? Koo Kevin and co-authors tried to answer these questions in a study wherein they analyzed the behavior of trainees who had graduated from urology residency programs in 2015 in the USA [4]. Among identifiable Facebook profiles, 80 profiles (40%) contained unprofessional or potentially objectionable content, including 27 profiles (13%) exhibiting explicitly unprofessional behavior. The common categories of unprofessional content included uncensored profanity, images of the urologist in an intoxicated state, references to specific episodes of intoxication, and images of unprofessional conduct at work and professional functions, such as conferences. Further instances of unprofessional conduct entailed the posting of explicit patient data, such as radiographic images where a specific patient's name and/or clinical details were visible, facilitating identification of the patient. The question therefore remains, as to whether we can, or indeed, whether we ought to, control and influence the behavior of members of the urological community in their in their personal (private) SoMe presence? Can or should private behavior in SoMe be evaluated, and can it affect the professional fate of the person or group associated with it? It should be borne in mind that SoMe, including Facebook, brings with it many important advantages and possibilities when used as a professional medical educational platform [5]. It provides unique opportunities to disseminate medical information to a large

central european journal of urology

Can Urologists be permitted to maintain a private Social Media presence in light of the relevant Guidelines and Codes of Conduct, which govern the use of Social Media with regard to these professionals?