Abstract/References

Exploring conceptions of medical unprofessionalism in Japan and the UK: a Q-methodology study

Maham Stanyon, Yayoi Shikama, Jo Horsburgh, Ravi Parekh, Gautham Benoy, Sayaka Oikawa, Megumi Yasuda, Zoe Moula, Koji Otani

Author information
  • Maham Stanyon
    Center for Medical Education and Career Development, Fukushima Medical University
  • Yayoi Shikama
    Center for Medical Education and Career Development, Fukushima Medical University
  • Jo Horsburgh
    Medical Education Innovation Research Centre, Imperial College London
    Centre for Higher Education Research and Scholarship, Imperial College London
  • Ravi Parekh
    Medical Education Innovation Research Centre, Imperial College London
  • Gautham Benoy
    Medical Education Innovation Research Centre, Imperial College London
  • Sayaka Oikawa
    Department of Innovative and Digitalized Medical Education, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine
  • Megumi Yasuda
    Center for Medical Education and Career Development, Fukushima Medical University
  • Zoe Moula
    Department of Care in Long-term Conditions, Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, Kings College London
  • Koji Otani
    Center for Medical Education and Career Development, Fukushima Medical University

Abstract

Western professionalism frameworks dominate medical education yet cause translational and ethical challenges when applied across cultures.　Increasing globalisation brings an impetus to examine these perspectives in non-dominating cultures, with a cultural understanding about what constitutes unprofessional behaviour urgently needed.　In the absence of comparative data from dominating and non-dominating cultures, we sought to use Q-methodology to examine perceptions of unprofessional behaviour amongst stakeholders in Japan and the UK.

Statements describing 48 unprofessional behaviours were sorted according to perceived severity by 58 Japanese and UK students, clinical educators, and administrators.　Factor analysis using judgemental rotation flagging factors at p<0.05 was performed.　Follow-up questionnaire responses were coded and supported the interpretation of factors.

A four-factor solution showing four distinct constructs of unprofessional behaviour was extracted: clinical responsibility (international factor), relational responsibility (Japanese-only factor), moral responsibility (UK-dominant factor), and personal responsibility (Japanese-dominant factor).　Japanese-only constructs identified behaviours disrupting personal and group relationships as more unprofessional, whereas the UK factor focused on personal motivation and ethical reasoning.

Our multi-stakeholder data provides empirical evidence into the contrasting conceptualisations of unprofessional behaviour that co-exist in practice.　We identify culturally constructed perspectives unique to both contexts, which warrant recognition and integration in local teaching and national guidelines.

The content of research paper

References

  1. Brennan N, Price T, Archer J, Brett J.　Remediating professionalism lapses in medical students and doctors:A systematic review.　Med Educ, 54:196-204, 2020.　doi:10.1111/medu.14016.　Epub 2019 Dec 23.　PMID:31872509.
  2. Van De Camp K, Vernooij-Dassen MJ, Grol RP, Bottema BJ.　How to conceptualize professionalism:a qualitative study.　Med Teach, 26:696-702, 2004.　doi:10.1080/01421590400019518.　PMID: 15763872.
  3. Birden H, Glass N, Wilson I, Harrison M, Usherwood T, Nass D.　Defining professionalism in medical education:a systematic review.　Med Teach, 36:47-61, 2014.　doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.850154.　Epub 2013 Nov 19.　PMID: 24252073.
  4. Lesser CS, Lucey CR, Egener B, Braddock CH 3rd, Linas SL, Levinson W.　A behavioral and systems view of professionalism.　JAMA, 304:2732-2737, 2010.　doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1864.　PMID: 21177508.
  5. Irby DM, Hamstra SJ.　Parting the Clouds:Three Professionalism Frameworks in Medical Education.　Acad Med, 91:1606-1611, 2016.　doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001190.　PMID:27119331.
  6. Walsh C, Abelson HT.　Medical professionalism:crossing a generational divide.　Perspect Biol Med, 51:554-564, 2008.　doi:10.1353/pbm.0.0042.　PMID:18997358.
  7. Mak-van der Vossen M, van Mook W, van der Burgt S, Kors J, Ket JCF, Croiset G, Kusurkar R.　Descriptors for unprofessional behaviours of medical students:a systematic review and categorisation.　BMC Med Educ, 17:164, 2017.　doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0997-x.
  8. Kinghorn WA, McEvoy MD, Michel A, Balboni M.　2007.　Viewpoint:Professionalism in modern medicine:Does the emperor have any clothes? Acad Med 82:40-45.
  9. General Medical Council UK.　Good Medical Practice.　Available from:https://www.gmc-uk.org/professional-standards/professional-standards-for-doctors/good-medical-practice [Last accessed 30.9.2024].
  10. ABIM. The Physician Charter. Available from:https://abimfoundation.org/what-we-do/physician-charter [Last accessed 30.9.2024].
  11. Stanyon M, Shikama Y, Otani K.　When I say … cultural competence. Med Educ, 55:556-557, 2021.　doi:10.1111/medu.14439
  12. Nishigori H, Shimazono Y, Busari J, Dornan T.　Exploring yarigai:The meaning of working as a physician in teaching medical professionalism. Med Teach.　Published online February 20, 2024.　doi:10.1080/0142159X.2024.2316227
  13. Nishigori H, Harrison R, Busari J, Dornan T.　Bushido and medical professionalism in Japan. Acad Med, 89:560-563, 2014.　doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000176
  14. Kusurkar RA, Mak-van der Vossen M, Kors J, Grijpma JW, van der Burgt SME, Koster AS, de la Croix A.　‘One size does not fit all’:The value of person-centred analysis in health professions education research.　Perspect Med Educ, 10:245-251, 2021.　doi:10.1007/s40037-020-00633-w.　Epub 2020 Dec 7.　PMID:33284407; PMCID: PMC8368141
  15. Watts S, Stenner, P.　Doing Q Methodological Research:Theory, Method and Interpretation.　London:SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012.　https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911.
  16. Fokkema JP, Scheele F, Westerman M, et al. Perceived effects of innovations in postgraduate medical education:a Q study focusing on workplace-based assessment.　AcadMed, 89:1259-1266, 2014.
  17. Chang, Y.C., Xiao, X., Nkambule, N.　et al. (2020) Exploring emergency physicians’ professional identities:a Q-method study.　Adv in Health Sci Educ 26, 117–138.　Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-020-09973-y
  18. Wallenburg, I., van Exel, J., Stolk, E., et al. (2010) Between trust and accountability:different perspectives on the modernization of postgraduate medical training in the Netherlands.　Acad Med.　85(6), 1082-1090.　Available from:doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181dc1f0f.　PMID:20505413
  19. Hofstede G.　Dimensionalizing Cultures:The Hofstede Model in Context.　Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2:2011.　https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
  20. Gobel MS, Miyamoto Y.　Self- and Other-Orientation in High Rank:A Cultural Psychological Approach to Social Hierarchy.　Personality and Social Psychology Review, 28:54-80, 2024.　https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683231172252
  21. Vygotsky LS.　Thought and Language.　The MIT Press; 1934.
  22. Kozulin A, Gindis B, Ageyev VS, Miller SM.　Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press; 2003.
  23. Brown, SR.　“The Forced-Free Distinction in Q Technique.” Journal of Educational Measurement, 8:283-287, 1971.　http://www.jstor.org/stable/1433748.
  24. Stainton Rogers R.　Q methodology.　In Smith, J.A., Harre, R. and Van Langenhove, L., editors, Rethinking methods in psychology.　London:Sage; 1995.
  25. Lutfallah S, Buchanan L.　Quantifying subjective data using online Q-methodology software.　The Mental Lexicon, 14:415-423, 2019.　doi:https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20002.lut
  26. Banasick S.　Ken-Q Analysis (Version 1.0.6); 2019 [Software].　Available from:https://shawnbanasick.github.io/ken-q-analysis/
  27. Banasick S.　A Comparison of Centroid Factor Extraction Methods for Q Methodology.　Kobe College Studies, 67:1-17, 2020.
  28. Ho R. Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS.　Boca Raton, FL:Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2006.
  29. Ramlo S. Centroid and Theoretical Rotation:Justification for Their Use in Q Methodology Research.　Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 28:73-92, 2016
  30. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, Olson K and Spiers J.　Verification Strategies for Establishing Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1:13-22, 2002.　https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100202
  31. Hilton SR, Slotnick HB.　Proto-professionalism: how professionalisation occurs across the continuum of medical education.　Med Educ, 39:58-65, 2005.
  32. Martimianakis MA, Maniate JM, Hodges BD.　Sociological interpretations of professionalism.　Med Educ, 43:829-837, 2009.　doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03408.x.　Epub 2009 Aug 6.　PMID: 19674298.
  33. Markus HR, Kitayama S.　Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.　Psychological Review, 98:224-253, 1991.　https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224.
  34. Yamagishi T.　Micro-macro dynamics of the cultural construction of reality:A niche construction approach to culture.　In:Gelfand MJ, Chiu CY and Hong YY (eds.) Advances in culture and psychology, Oxford:Oxford University Press, 251-308, 2011.

Figures

Flowchart illustrating the Q-sort generation and analysis process in research methodology.
A chart displaying various professional behaviors ranked from least to most unprofessional, with descriptive labels for each category.
ALT: A mathematical expression showing the square root of the number of statements, displayed in a stylized format.
Table displaying professional behavior attributes and their corresponding descriptions in a structured format.
Table displaying factor solutions and acceptance criteria for statistical analysis.
Table summarizing participant contributions by country, position, and experience in medical education.
Table displaying the ranking of statements related to clinical responsibility in medical education.

ページの先頭へ戻る