Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29447259›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Medical professionalism of foreign-born and foreign-trained physicians under close scrutiny: A qualitative study with stakeholders in Germany.

Corinna Klingler, Fatiha Ismail, Georg Marckmann, Katja Kuehlmeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Corinna KlinglerInstitute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8148-5999
Fatiha IsmailInstitute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Georg MarckmannInstitute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Katja KuehlmeyerInstitute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hospitals in Germany employ increasing numbers of foreign-born and foreign-trained (FB&FT) physicians. Studies have investigated how FB&FT physicians experience their professional integration into the German healthcare system, however, the perspectives of stakeholders working with and shaping the work experiences of FB&FT physicians in German hospitals have so far been neglected. This study explores relevant stakeholders' opinions and attitudes towards FB&FT physicians-which likely influence how these physicians settle in-and how these opinions were formed. We conducted a qualitative interview study with 25 stakeholders working in hospitals or in health policy development. The interviews were analyzed within a constructivist research paradigm using methods derived from Grounded Theory (situational analysis as well as open, axial and selective coding). We found that stakeholders tended to focus on problems in FB&FT physicians' work performance. Participants criticized FB&FT physicians' work for deviating from presumably shared professional standards (skill or knowledge and behavioral standards). The professional standards invoked to justify problem-focused statements comprised the definition of an ideal behavior, attitude or ability and a tolerance range that was adapted in a dynamic process. Behavior falling outside the tolerance range was criticized as unacceptable, requiring action to prevent similar deviations in the future. Furthermore, we derived three strategies (minimization, homogenization and quality management) proposed by participants to manage deviations from assumed professional standards by FB&FT physicians. We critically reflect on the social processes of evaluation and problematization and question the legitimacy of professional standards invoked. We also discuss discriminatory tendencies visible in evaluative statements of some participants as well as in some of the strategies proposed. We suggest it will be key to develop and implement better support strategies for FB&FT physicians while also addressing problematic attitudes within the receiving system to further professional integration.

Indexed as

Foreign Medical GraduatesPhysiciansProfessionalismAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceGermanyHealth PolicyHumansInterviews as TopicPhysician's RolePrejudiceQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID29447259
PMCPMC5814013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.