The use of social media in social care: a systematic review of the argument-based ethics literature.

IF 2.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Tijs Vandemeulebroucke, Larissa Bolte
{"title":"The use of social media in social care: a systematic review of the argument-based ethics literature.","authors":"Tijs Vandemeulebroucke, Larissa Bolte","doi":"10.1007/s11019-025-10269-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Digital technologies, especially social media, have become everyday tools. In care settings, the use of social media is considered a possible guarantee to maintain quality practices. This trend is specifically relevant for social care, including social work, psychology, psychiatry, rehabilitation etc., due to their communicative nature. Nevertheless, this use is joined by ethical vulnerabilities. To get insight into these, a systematic review of relevant normative-ethical literature was carried out following a 4-step methodology: developing ethical-conceptual questions; a literature search in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Philosopher's Index, Web of Science, ProQuest Database Psychology); assessment and inclusion of articles based on predefined criteria; extracting, analysing, and synthesizing reported data. Thirty-three articles were included, showing that current ethical debates are governed by nine themes: Benefits of social media; Relations, limits, and boundaries; Searches; Privacy, confidentiality, and trust; Documentation and records; Competency and client suitability; Consultation and referral; Informed consent; and Identity and image. We found that most ethical literature on social media use in social care settings adheres to the principles of biomedical ethics (respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) and to an ethics of carefulness, i.e. an ethics which takes social media for granted and considers its impact only on the particular therapeutic relationship. It loses sight of those ethical issues which occur on organizational, societal, and global levels. A full account of the ethics of social media use can only be given by considering these different levels and by informing the ethics of carefulness by an ethics of desirability.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-025-10269-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Digital technologies, especially social media, have become everyday tools. In care settings, the use of social media is considered a possible guarantee to maintain quality practices. This trend is specifically relevant for social care, including social work, psychology, psychiatry, rehabilitation etc., due to their communicative nature. Nevertheless, this use is joined by ethical vulnerabilities. To get insight into these, a systematic review of relevant normative-ethical literature was carried out following a 4-step methodology: developing ethical-conceptual questions; a literature search in four electronic databases (CINAHL, Philosopher's Index, Web of Science, ProQuest Database Psychology); assessment and inclusion of articles based on predefined criteria; extracting, analysing, and synthesizing reported data. Thirty-three articles were included, showing that current ethical debates are governed by nine themes: Benefits of social media; Relations, limits, and boundaries; Searches; Privacy, confidentiality, and trust; Documentation and records; Competency and client suitability; Consultation and referral; Informed consent; and Identity and image. We found that most ethical literature on social media use in social care settings adheres to the principles of biomedical ethics (respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice) and to an ethics of carefulness, i.e. an ethics which takes social media for granted and considers its impact only on the particular therapeutic relationship. It loses sight of those ethical issues which occur on organizational, societal, and global levels. A full account of the ethics of social media use can only be given by considering these different levels and by informing the ethics of carefulness by an ethics of desirability.

社会媒体在社会关怀中的使用:基于论证的伦理学文献的系统回顾。
数字技术,尤其是社交媒体,已经成为日常工具。在护理环境中,使用社交媒体被认为是保持高质量实践的可能保证。这一趋势与社会关怀特别相关,包括社会工作、心理学、精神病学、康复等,因为它们的交流性质。然而,这种使用伴随着道德上的脆弱性。为了深入了解这些问题,我们对相关规范伦理文献进行了系统回顾,并采用了四步方法:提出伦理概念问题;4个电子数据库(CINAHL、Philosopher’s Index、Web of Science、ProQuest Database Psychology)的文献检索;根据预先订定的标准评估和列入物品;提取、分析和综合报告的数据。其中包括33篇文章,表明当前的道德辩论主要由9个主题主导:社交媒体的好处;关系、限制和界限;搜索;隐私、保密和信任;文件和记录;胜任能力和客户适用性;咨询和转介;知情同意;身份和形象。我们发现,大多数关于社交媒体在社会护理环境中使用的伦理文献都遵循生物医学伦理原则(尊重自主、仁慈、非恶意、正义)和谨慎伦理,即认为社交媒体是理所当然的伦理,只考虑其对特定治疗关系的影响。它忽视了那些发生在组织、社会和全球层面的道德问题。只有考虑到这些不同的层面,并通过可取性伦理来告知谨慎伦理,才能充分说明社交媒体使用的伦理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信