Generational Divides and Guidance Needs in the Use of Social Media: Results from an Italian Dermatology Survey

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: The growing influence of social media in healthcare raises ethical, regulatory, and professional concerns. Dermatology, positioned at the intersection of clinical, surgical, and aesthetic medicine, faces unique challenges in navigating this digital landscape. Objectives: To assess how dermatology professionals in Italy use social media; identify behavioural patterns and sociodemographic correlates; and explore perceived challenges, educational needs, and the potential role of institutional guidance. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among Italian dermatologists, residents, students, and nurses (n = 201). The 25-item questionnaire explored demographics, platform use, content shared, and perceptions. Descriptive statistics, hierarchical clustering (Ward’s method), and Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) were used to assess usage patterns and their association with age, experience, and role. Results: Among respondents, 49.8% reported professional use of social media. Two clusters emerged: Cluster 1 (n = 52), mainly older, experienced professionals with low activity and limited platform use; and Cluster 2 (n = 48), younger, less experienced users more active on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Significant associations were found with age (p < 0.001), experience (p < 0.001), and professional role (p = 0.0039). While most acknowledged social media’s value for education and prevention, concerns emerged about misinformation, legal risks, and inadequate training. Only 11.4% had received formal instruction. Over 75% supported official recommendations. Conclusions: A generational divide and lack of structured training result in fragmented digital engagement among Italian dermatologists. Institutional guidance could help promote ethical communication, reinforce professional credibility, and support public health through trustworthy digital content.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.