Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

  • Dong Wook Shin
  • , Juhee Cho
  • , Hyung Kook Yang
  • , So Young Kim
  • , Soohyeon Lee
  • , Eun Joo Nam
  • , Joo Seop Chung
  • , Jeong Soo Im
  • , Keeho Park
  • , Jong Hyock Park
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Sungkyunkwan University
  • National Cancer Center Korea
  • Chungbuk National University
  • Yonsei University
  • Pusan National University
  • Gachon University

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere019067
JournalBMJ Open
Volume8
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 May 2018

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • best cancer doctor
  • media
  • oncology
  • reputation
  • selection

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Physicians' attitudes towards the media and peer-review selection of the 'best cancer doctor': Comparison of two different selection methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this