{"title":"Why is it so hard to improve physicians' health? A qualitative interview study with senior physicians on mechanisms inherent in professional identity.","authors":"Heike Schulte, Gabriele Lutz, Claudia Kiessling","doi":"10.3205/zma001721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Current research increasingly describes physicians' health as endangered. Interventions to improve physicians' health show inconsistent results. In order to investigate possible causes for weak long-term effects, we examined senior physicians' perceptions about the relevance of their own health and analyzed whether and how these might affect the difficulty to improve physicians' health.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The authors conducted 19 semi-structured interviews with senior physicians from different medical disciplines, analyzed the data and developed theory using the grounded theory method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on the interviews, we developed a conceptual model which identifies reinforcing factors for physicians' hesitancy in self-care as well as barriers to change. Participants regarded their own health needs as low and equated health with performance. These perceptions were described as being part of their professional identity and mirrored by the hospital culture they work in. Mechanisms as part of the collective professional identity (CPI) of physicians help to stabilize the status quo through early socialization and pride in exceptional performance. In addition, the tabooing of weakness and illness among colleagues, and dissociation from patients as well as sick doctors were identified as stabilizing mechanisms.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Findings support the assumption that one cause of physicians' health problems might lie in a CPI that includes tendencies to rate one's health as secondary or irrelevant. Identified mechanisms against change are, according to Social Identity Theory, typical group strategies which ensure the stability of CPI and make existing attitudes and beliefs difficult to change. However, barriers against change could possibly be overcome by addressing these underlying mechanisms and by a change process that is supported by experienced and competent members of the in-group for the benefit of both physicians and patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":45850,"journal":{"name":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","volume":"41 5","pages":"Doc66"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11656177/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Current research increasingly describes physicians' health as endangered. Interventions to improve physicians' health show inconsistent results. In order to investigate possible causes for weak long-term effects, we examined senior physicians' perceptions about the relevance of their own health and analyzed whether and how these might affect the difficulty to improve physicians' health.
Method: The authors conducted 19 semi-structured interviews with senior physicians from different medical disciplines, analyzed the data and developed theory using the grounded theory method.
Results: Based on the interviews, we developed a conceptual model which identifies reinforcing factors for physicians' hesitancy in self-care as well as barriers to change. Participants regarded their own health needs as low and equated health with performance. These perceptions were described as being part of their professional identity and mirrored by the hospital culture they work in. Mechanisms as part of the collective professional identity (CPI) of physicians help to stabilize the status quo through early socialization and pride in exceptional performance. In addition, the tabooing of weakness and illness among colleagues, and dissociation from patients as well as sick doctors were identified as stabilizing mechanisms.
Conclusion: Findings support the assumption that one cause of physicians' health problems might lie in a CPI that includes tendencies to rate one's health as secondary or irrelevant. Identified mechanisms against change are, according to Social Identity Theory, typical group strategies which ensure the stability of CPI and make existing attitudes and beliefs difficult to change. However, barriers against change could possibly be overcome by addressing these underlying mechanisms and by a change process that is supported by experienced and competent members of the in-group for the benefit of both physicians and patients.
期刊介绍:
GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS J Med Educ) – formerly GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung – publishes scientific articles on all aspects of undergraduate and graduate education in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and other health professions. Research and review articles, project reports, short communications as well as discussion papers and comments may be submitted. There is a special focus on empirical studies which are methodologically sound and lead to results that are relevant beyond the respective institution, profession or country. Please feel free to submit qualitative as well as quantitative studies. We especially welcome submissions by students. It is the mission of GMS Journal for Medical Education to contribute to furthering scientific knowledge in the German-speaking countries as well as internationally and thus to foster the improvement of teaching and learning and to build an evidence base for undergraduate and graduate education. To this end, the journal has set up an editorial board with international experts. All manuscripts submitted are subjected to a clearly structured peer review process. All articles are published bilingually in English and German and are available with unrestricted open access. Thus, GMS Journal for Medical Education is available to a broad international readership. GMS Journal for Medical Education is published as an unrestricted open access journal with at least four issues per year. In addition, special issues on current topics in medical education research are also published. Until 2015 the journal was published under its German name GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. By changing its name to GMS Journal for Medical Education, we wish to underline our international mission.