OBJECTIVE: To explore junior medical students' notions of a 'good doctor', given their ideas about: success in Year 1, house jobs, and their attraction to medicine. METHODS: Study participants were junior medical students (1999 and 2001 entry cohorts studied thrice and twice, respectively) and prospective students of the University of Liverpool's 5-year, problem-based, community-orientated curriculum. Data collection and analysis used a 'mixed methods' approach, cross-sectional design, and brief questionnaire surveys. In an index survey, open questions (analysed inductively) explored house jobs and Year 1 success. They also generated 'good doctor' themes, which a second survey confirmed and 3 surveys ranked. A sixth survey explored motivation for choosing medicine (open question). Good doctor rankings were analysed by postcode for prospective medical students classified as school-leaver residents of England and Wales. RESULTS: Response rates were: 91.4% (973) of the 2001-02 admission candidates, on interview days; 68.0% (155), 61.2% (137) and 77.9% (159) of the 1999 cohort (at entry, end-Year 1 and mid-Year 3, respectively), and 71.0% (201) and 71.0% (198) of the 2001 cohort (at entry and end-Year 1, respectively). From 9 themes generally compatible with self-reported motivations and expectations, junior and prospective medical students consistently valued a good doctor as a 'compassionate, patient-centred carer' and a 'listening, informative communicator' over an 'exemplary, responsible professional'. Prospective students from less affluent English and Welsh postcodes valued 'efficient, organised self-manager' very slightly more highly (r(s) = - 0.140, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This research provided empirical evidence to support ongoing commentary about patients mostly seeking qualities related to communication, caring, and competence in doctors. Weak evidence that socio-economic status might affect notions of a good doctor is worth pursuing.
OBJECTIVE: To explore junior medical students' notions of a 'good doctor', given their ideas about: success in Year 1, house jobs, and their attraction to medicine. METHODS: Study participants were junior medical students (1999 and 2001 entry cohorts studied thrice and twice, respectively) and prospective students of the University of Liverpool's 5-year, problem-based, community-orientated curriculum. Data collection and analysis used a 'mixed methods' approach, cross-sectional design, and brief questionnaire surveys. In an index survey, open questions (analysed inductively) explored house jobs and Year 1 success. They also generated 'good doctor' themes, which a second survey confirmed and 3 surveys ranked. A sixth survey explored motivation for choosing medicine (open question). Good doctor rankings were analysed by postcode for prospective medical students classified as school-leaver residents of England and Wales. RESULTS: Response rates were: 91.4% (973) of the 2001-02 admission candidates, on interview days; 68.0% (155), 61.2% (137) and 77.9% (159) of the 1999 cohort (at entry, end-Year 1 and mid-Year 3, respectively), and 71.0% (201) and 71.0% (198) of the 2001 cohort (at entry and end-Year 1, respectively). From 9 themes generally compatible with self-reported motivations and expectations, junior and prospective medical students consistently valued a good doctor as a 'compassionate, patient-centred carer' and a 'listening, informative communicator' over an 'exemplary, responsible professional'. Prospective students from less affluent English and Welsh postcodes valued 'efficient, organised self-manager' very slightly more highly (r(s) = - 0.140, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This research provided empirical evidence to support ongoing commentary about patients mostly seeking qualities related to communication, caring, and competence in doctors. Weak evidence that socio-economic status might affect notions of a good doctor is worth pursuing.
Authors: Arndt Büssing; Almut Tabea Hirdes; Klaus Baumann; Niels Christian Hvidt; Peter Heusser Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 2.629