Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35804373›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

You are exactly my type! The traits of a good doctor: a factor analysis study on public's perspectives.

Julia S Grundnig, Verena Steiner-Hofbauer, Viktoria Drexler, Anita Holzinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  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.

Julia S GrundnigTeaching Center, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, BT 87, Vienna, Austria. Julia.grundnig@meduniwien.ac.at.
Verena Steiner-HofbauerTeaching Center, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, BT 87, Vienna, Austria.
Viktoria DrexlerTeaching Center, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, BT 87, Vienna, Austria.
Anita HolzingerTeaching Center, Medical University of Vienna, Spitalgasse 23, BT 87, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsFactor 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

PhysiciansFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansMoralsPhysician-Patient RelationsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAttributesDoctor–patient relationshipMedical professionalismPhysician behaviourPublic viewsQualities

Identifiers

PMID35804373
PMCPMC9270819

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.