You are exactly my type! The traits of a good doctor: a factor analysis study on public's perspectives.
Attributes
Doctor–patient relationship
Medical professionalism
Physician behaviour
Public views
Qualities
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Jul 2022
08 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
01
12
2021
accepted:
28
06
2022
entrez:
8
7
2022
pubmed:
9
7
2022
medline:
14
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A multiplicity of qualities and behaviours are considered essential in a good doctor and are identified in various medical profession frameworks. However, there is no consensus as to their meaning or even agreement on fundamental qualities. The authors wanted to examine the importance placed by the Austrian public on the professional and personal traits of ideal physicians. Competencies were used to create different types of 'good doctor' and then examined to discover how these can be integrated into existing medical professionalism frameworks. A 69-item Likert scale-based questionnaire was developed and administered via telephone interview to 1,000 subjects. Computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were carried out by the Austrian GALLUP-Institute. An explorative factor analysis with promax rotation was undertaken to summarise the interrelationships among variables. Factor analysis identified six interpretable factors which we define as six different types of doctors: the dutiful doctor, the online health-celebrity, the medical expert, the service physician, the medical altruist, and the ethical agent. The items perceived as most important were 'takes time', 'listens', and 'makes correct diagnoses'. Outcome measures of internal consistency and reliability estimates (Cronbach´s alpha, 0.69-0.86) for each element. The six types of physicians may be a step toward recognizing the professional behaviour of all physicians, their actions as healers, and their commitment to moral concepts, values, and needs of their patients, and society. According to our results, the public has expectations of good doctors that go beyond the scope within the medical professionalism frameworks. Therefore, these guidelines should be adapted in light of the changing expectations and needs of the general population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A multiplicity of qualities and behaviours are considered essential in a good doctor and are identified in various medical profession frameworks. However, there is no consensus as to their meaning or even agreement on fundamental qualities. The authors wanted to examine the importance placed by the Austrian public on the professional and personal traits of ideal physicians. Competencies were used to create different types of 'good doctor' and then examined to discover how these can be integrated into existing medical professionalism frameworks.
METHODS
METHODS
A 69-item Likert scale-based questionnaire was developed and administered via telephone interview to 1,000 subjects. Computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) were carried out by the Austrian GALLUP-Institute. An explorative factor analysis with promax rotation was undertaken to summarise the interrelationships among variables.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Factor analysis identified six interpretable factors which we define as six different types of doctors: the dutiful doctor, the online health-celebrity, the medical expert, the service physician, the medical altruist, and the ethical agent. The items perceived as most important were 'takes time', 'listens', and 'makes correct diagnoses'. Outcome measures of internal consistency and reliability estimates (Cronbach´s alpha, 0.69-0.86) for each element.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The six types of physicians may be a step toward recognizing the professional behaviour of all physicians, their actions as healers, and their commitment to moral concepts, values, and needs of their patients, and society. According to our results, the public has expectations of good doctors that go beyond the scope within the medical professionalism frameworks. Therefore, these guidelines should be adapted in light of the changing expectations and needs of the general population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35804373
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08273-y
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08273-y
pmc: PMC9270819
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
886Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Singapore Med J. 1998 Dec;39(12):537-42
pubmed: 10067397
Educ Health (Abingdon). 2011 Apr;24(1):387
pubmed: 21710412
Acad Med. 2010 Jun;85(6):930; author reply 930
pubmed: 20505384
Clin Med (Lond). 2010 Aug;10(4):364-9
pubmed: 20849011
BMJ. 2002 Sep 28;325(7366):667-8
pubmed: 12351341
Wien Med Wochenschr. 2018 Nov;168(15-16):398-405
pubmed: 28905272
JAMA. 2015 May 12;313(18):1837-8
pubmed: 25965231
Acad Med. 2000 Jun;75(6):612-6
pubmed: 10875505
BMJ. 2002 Sep 28;325(7366):668-9
pubmed: 12351342
Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Dec;47(425):805-9
pubmed: 9463981
BMC Med Educ. 2019 Feb 15;19(1):59
pubmed: 30770777
BMC Health Serv Res. 2004 Sep 12;4(1):26
pubmed: 15361255
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(7):642-7
pubmed: 18236250
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 5;136(3):243-6
pubmed: 11827500
Clin Med (Lond). 2002 Mar-Apr;2(2):91
pubmed: 11991113
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Apr 16;158(8):620-7
pubmed: 23579867
Med Teach. 2007 Mar;29(2-3):e58-62
pubmed: 17701611
J Korean Med Sci. 2019 May 13;34(18):e125
pubmed: 31074251
Psychosoc Med. 2005 Feb 17;2:Doc01
pubmed: 19742060
Med J Aust. 2007 Mar 5;186(5):256-61
pubmed: 17391090
BMJ Open. 2013 Jan 03;3(1):
pubmed: 23293244
Med Educ. 2019 Oct;53(10):1025-1036
pubmed: 31509286
Med Teach. 2010;32(8):e347-54
pubmed: 20662569
Ir Med J. 2003 Feb;96(2):38-41
pubmed: 12674150
Perspect Biol Med. 2008 Autumn;51(4):579-98
pubmed: 18997360
Med Educ. 2006 Oct;40(10):1027-36
pubmed: 16987195