Medical Prfessionalism: Comparing Views of Public and Doctors

Abstract

Objective: To compare the views of public and doctors about importance of attributes of medical professionalism.
 Study Design: cross-sectional comparative study.
 Place and Duration of Study: Study was carried out at Fauji Foundation Hospital Rawalpindi from Oct 2019 to Mar 2020.
 Methodology: Study included 115 public participants and 115 doctors. Their perceptions about the importance of different attributes of medical professionalism were recorded on a structured questionnaire by rating on a 5-point Likert scale of importance. Independent samples t-test was used to compare the mean scores of the public group to the mean scores of the doctors for every attribute.
 Results: View of public and doctors were very similar. “Honesty and integrity, sound judgment and decision making, responsible behavior, confidentiality, professional development, abiding professional rules, and being reliable” were ranked among the top ten important attributes by both groups. On the other extreme “maintaining a high standard of living” was ranked at the bottom of list by both groups. Significant differences in views of public and doctors were found regarding attributes of social justice among doctors (4.4 vs 4.09, p=0.012) and among patients (4.43 vs 4.09, p=0.05) and autonomy (4.42 vs 4.2; p=0.042).
 Conclusion: The opinions of public and doctors on what constitutes medical professionalism are similar with integrity and honesty being the most important attribute and to maintain a high standard of living being the least important attribute.

Medical students’ views on what professionalism means: an Ubuntu perspective

“…Scholars outside the Global North (North America, Europe, and Australia) have compared the Physician’s Charter with their context. Most of them compared this lofty, highly legitimate document, an encyclopedia of professionalism, with their context (Bano et al, 2021 ; Ho et al, 2014 , 2016 ; Ibrahim et al, 2021 ; Jin, 2015 ; Jotkowitz & Glick, 2005 ; Nishigori et al, 2014 ; van Rooyen, 2004 ; van Rooyen & Treadwell, 2007 ). This phenomenon occurs because the Physician’s Charter has become a normative document, and everyone is interested in seeing how it compares to their specific context.…”

“…The Charter also added a commitment to a set of professional responsibilities such as professional competence, honesty with patients, patient confidentiality, scientific knowledge, improving quality of care, improving access to care, a just distribution of finite resources and scientific knowledge (Blank, 2002 ; Blank et al, 2003 ). Over the years, scholars in several countries have compared what is stipulated in the Charter to their local settings and different contexts to elicit its applicability (Bano et al, 2021 ; Ho et al, 2016 ; Ibrahim et al, 2021 ; Jin, 2015 ; Nishigori et al, 2014 ; Van Rooyen et al, 2004 ; Van Rooyen & Treadwell, 2007 ). Some scholars have contrasted the Western notion of professionalism or the Physician’s Charter to other ways of knowing (Al-Eraky et al, 2014 ; Jotkowitz & Glick, 2005 ; Nishigori et al, 2014 ).…”

“…Although Jin and Ho found similarities between the Physician’s Charter and the Chinese and Arabic charters, they also found differences or divergences regarding autonomy which is replaced or dominated by family-centered decision-making (Ho et al, 2016 ; Jin, 2015 ). Writing from Pakistan, Bano expressed concerns that the Physicians Charter did not consider patients’ views (Bano et al, 2021 ). In combination, all of these studies demonstrate that although there are some similarities in the Physicians Charter and other cultural contexts, there are also differences that cannot be ignored.…”

Social Anxiety and Depression in Youth: Mediating Role of Body Dysmorphic Symptoms

“…The Structured Clinical Diagnostic Interview was used to assess depression, consisting of 12 items on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 4 9 , with a reliability coefficient of .70. The Urdu version of the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A) was also used, originally developed by La Greca in 1998 and consisting of 18 items with a five-point Likert rating scale, three subscales (Fear of Negative Evaluation, Social Avoidance and Distress-General, and Social Avoidance and Distress-New Situa-tions) 10 , and a reliability coefficient of .88.…”