A cross-sectional study of policies from American medical organizations about public communications from physicians in the digital age
Alexander J. Smith,Stefanie Hachen,Maria A. Oquendo,Dinesh Bhugra,Antonio Ventriglio,Michael Liebrenz
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81176-6
IF: 4.6
2024-11-30
Scientific Reports
Abstract:As a professional duty, physicians are often required to publicly comment on health-related topics. However, ethical complexities can arise during discussions about high-profile individuals or events, especially in an era of rapid news cycles and digital media. The American Medical Association (AMA) has policies concerning physician commentary and media interactions, as does the American Psychiatric Association (i.e., the Goldwater Rule). Nevertheless, the extent to which other United States medical associations have adopted similar protocols remains underexplored. Focusing on non-psychiatric members of the AMA's policymaking body, the Federation of Medicine (FMMs), this study sought to analyze cross-speciality perspectives. Between January-March 2024, online resources for N = 122 FMMs were reviewed (e.g., professional codes and position statements), followed by email outreach to verify positions and garner further insights. n = 47 FMMs provided sufficient information for inclusion, cumulatively representing approximately 950,000 members. n = 16 FMMs (34%) had guidelines or policies regarding public commentary, generally emphasizing accuracy, consent, and confidentiality. Yet, for the majority of FMMs ( n = 31/66%), no specific regulations were identified; these organizations did not cite any proprietary statutes or deferred to AMA materials. Moreover, existing FMM policies largely overlooked the impact of Artificial Intelligence and digital misinformation, warranting cross-specialty exchanges to uphold credible discourse amid societal and technological shifts.
multidisciplinary sciences