Observational studyMedicine2016
The influence factors of medical professionalism: A stratified-random sampling study based on the physicians and patients in ambulatory care clinics of Chengdu, China.
Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Using Artificial Intelligence (Watson for Oncology) for Treatment Recommendations Amongst Chinese Patients with Lung Cancer: Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the relationship between physicians and patients deteriorated in China recently, medical conflicts occurred more frequently now. Physicians, to a certain extent, also take some responsibilities. Awareness of medical professionalism and its influence factors can be helpful to take targeted measures and alleviate the contradiction. Through a combination of physicians' self-assessment and patients' assessment in ambulatory care clinics in Chengdu, this research aims to evaluate the importance of medical professionalism in hospitals and explore the influence factors, hoping to provide decision-making references to improve this grim situation. From February to March, 2013, a cross-sectional study was conducted in 2 tier 3 hospitals, 5 tier 2 hospitals, and 10 community hospitals through a stratified-random sampling method on physicians and patients, at a ratio of 1/5. Questionnaires are adopted from a pilot study. A total of 382 physicians and 1910 patients were matched and surveyed. Regarding the medical professionalism, the scores of the self-assessment for physicians were 85.18 ± 7.267 out of 100 and the scores of patient-assessment were 57.66 ± 7.043 out of 70. The influence factors of self-assessment were physicians' working years (P = 0.003) and patients' complaints (P = 0.006), whereas the influence factors of patient-assessment were patients' ages (P = 0.001) and their physicians' working years (P < 0.01) and satisfaction on the payment mode (P = 0.006). Higher self-assessment on the medical professionalism was in accordance with physicians of more working years and no complaint history. Higher patient-assessment was in line with elder patients, the physicians' more working years, and higher satisfaction on the payment mode. Elder patients, encountering with physicians who worked more years in health care services or with higher satisfaction on the payment mode, contribute to higher scores in patient assessment part. The government should strengthen the medical professionalism for young physicians and improve the payment mode.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.