Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMJ Open. 2018 May 14;8(5):e019067. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019067.

Physicians' attitudes towards the media and peer-review selection of the 'best cancer doctor': comparison of two different selection methods.

Author information

1
Department of Family Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
2
Supportive Care Center, Samsung Comprehensive Cancer Center, Seoul, South Korea.
3
Department of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
4
Department of Health, Behavior and Society & Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
5
Cancer Education Center, Samsung Comprehensive Cancer Center, SAHIST and School of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
6
Division of Health Policy and Management, National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, South Korea.
7
Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, South Korea.
8
Division of medical oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
9
Department of Hemato-Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, South Korea.
10
Department of Preventive Medicine, Gachon Medical School, Incheon, South Korea.
11
College of Medicine/Graduate School of Health Science Business Convergence, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, South Korea.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The 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.

DESIGN:

Nationwide, cross-sectional survey.

SETTING:

National Cancer Center and 12 Regional Cancer Centers across Korea.

PARTICIPANTS:

A total of 680 cancer care physicians participated in the survey (75.5% participation rate), and two were excluded due to incomplete response.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Physicians' 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.

RESULTS:

Only 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.

CONCLUSION:

Physicians 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.

KEYWORDS:

best cancer doctor; media; oncology; reputation; selection

PMID:
29764870
PMCID:
PMC5961570
DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019067
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center