ArticleBMJ open2018
Physicians' attitudes towards the media and peer-review selection of the 'best cancer doctor': comparison of two different selection methods.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe choice of doctor is an important issue for patients with cancer, and the reputation of the doctor is the single most important factor for patients to choose a doctor. Media are providing information about the 'best cancer doctor', but they vary widely in their selection methodology. We investigated cancer physicians' attitudes towards the selection of the 'best cancer doctor' by the media, by comparing two different selection methodologies: selection by media personnel or selection through peer-review system.
designNationwide, cross-sectional survey.
settingNational Cancer Center and 12 Regional Cancer Centers across Korea.
participantsA total of 680 cancer care physicians participated in the survey (75.5% participation rate), and two were excluded due to incomplete response.
main outcome measuresPhysicians' opinions on the credibility, fairness, validity, helpfulness to patients, their intention to use the information and helpfulness to improve the quality of cancer care of the two different methods.
resultsOnly a few physicians believed that the selection method of the 'best cancer doctor' by the media personnel was credible (9.1%), fair (6.1%) or valid (10.0%). In contrast, the majority agreed that the peer-selection method of the 'best doctor' is credible (74.7%), fair (64.7%) and valid (67.4%). More physicians believed the latter methods would be useful for patients when selecting their doctor (38.5% vs 82.2%) and may lead to improvement of the quality of cancer care from the perspective of the healthcare system (12.6% vs 59.8%). The need for ensuring objectiveness and transparency was also raised.
conclusionPhysicians showed different attitudes towards two different selection methods. Regulations or guidelines for selecting the 'best cancer doctor' and for disclosing the information should be considered in order to control the quality of the information and to protect the customers.
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.