Health Professional Students Prefer Study Advice from Institutionally Affiliated Sources Over Internet "Med-fluencers"

Abstract

Students have access to countless sources of study advice, including medical professionals on social media known as "med-fluencers" However, not all sources are credible. This study explored who students viewed as credible sources and identified any factors that influenced their credibility. Prior to the first exam, allied health students in a doctoral-level gross anatomy course were presented with study advice videos featuring either a "med-fluencer," an anatomy professor from an external institution, an anatomy professor from the home institution, and a near-peer student. Students then completed the Measure of Ethos/Credibility (MEC), a construct that assesses the perceived competence, goodwill, and trustworthiness of an instructor. After the exam, students completed the MEC again. Students who completed both MECs were then invited to participate in a focus group. A total of 35 students completed the pre-exam MEC, and 16 students completed the post-exam MEC, resulting in 10 matched pairs. Before and after the first exam, the home professor received the highest MEC score, followed closely by the external professor and near-peer student, then the med-fluencer. Thematic analysis also indicated that although the near-peer had the least expertise, students preferred their advice due to their recent experience in their specific course. Overall, allied health students viewed professors as the most credible sources of study advice but preferred to use the advice of near-peers due to their recent experience in their specific gross anatomy course. Conversely, the med-fluencer was viewed as the least credible due to their distance from the students and their course.