家庭医生在临床环境中有更大的歧义容忍度:一项全国性的横断面研究

IF 2.3 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Hirohisa Fujikawa MD, PhD, Takuya Aoki MD, PhD, MMA, Takayuki Ando MD, MPH, Junji Haruta MD, PhD
{"title":"家庭医生在临床环境中有更大的歧义容忍度:一项全国性的横断面研究","authors":"Hirohisa Fujikawa MD, PhD,&nbsp;Takuya Aoki MD, PhD, MMA,&nbsp;Takayuki Ando MD, MPH,&nbsp;Junji Haruta MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/jgf2.747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context is increasingly recognized as essential for physicians to work as professionals. However, the relationship between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context has been understudied. Here, we investigated the association between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context, focusing on differences between family physicians (FPs) and non-FPs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We performed a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan. We asked FPs from 14 family medicine residency programs across Japan and non-FPs from monitors of an internet survey company in Japan to participate in the study. We assessed their tolerance for ambiguity using the Japanese version of the Tolerance for Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (J-TAMSAD) scale.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In total, 388 physicians (178 FPs and 210 non-FPs) completed our anonymous online survey and were included in the analysis. After adjustment for possible confounders (gender and postgraduate years), FPs had higher J-TAMSAD scale scores than internists/pediatricians, surgeons, and physicians with other specialties, meaning that FPs had greater ambiguity tolerance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This study reveals that FPs had greater tolerance for ambiguity in the clinical context than non-FPs. Our findings suggest that there may be a need to increase non-FP's tolerance for ambiguity specific to the clinical context through educational interventions, since ambiguity is inherent and growing in medicine today. FPs and non-FPs should work together to complement each other's strengths, rather than simply improving the training of non-FPs.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General and Family Medicine","volume":"26 2","pages":"128-134"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgf2.747","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Family physicians have greater ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context: A nationwide cross-sectional study\",\"authors\":\"Hirohisa Fujikawa MD, PhD,&nbsp;Takuya Aoki MD, PhD, MMA,&nbsp;Takayuki Ando MD, MPH,&nbsp;Junji Haruta MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jgf2.747\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context is increasingly recognized as essential for physicians to work as professionals. However, the relationship between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context has been understudied. Here, we investigated the association between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context, focusing on differences between family physicians (FPs) and non-FPs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We performed a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan. We asked FPs from 14 family medicine residency programs across Japan and non-FPs from monitors of an internet survey company in Japan to participate in the study. We assessed their tolerance for ambiguity using the Japanese version of the Tolerance for Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (J-TAMSAD) scale.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>In total, 388 physicians (178 FPs and 210 non-FPs) completed our anonymous online survey and were included in the analysis. After adjustment for possible confounders (gender and postgraduate years), FPs had higher J-TAMSAD scale scores than internists/pediatricians, surgeons, and physicians with other specialties, meaning that FPs had greater ambiguity tolerance.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study reveals that FPs had greater tolerance for ambiguity in the clinical context than non-FPs. Our findings suggest that there may be a need to increase non-FP's tolerance for ambiguity specific to the clinical context through educational interventions, since ambiguity is inherent and growing in medicine today. FPs and non-FPs should work together to complement each other's strengths, rather than simply improving the training of non-FPs.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General and Family Medicine\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"128-134\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jgf2.747\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of General and Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgf2.747\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General and Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgf2.747","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床环境中的歧义容忍越来越被认为是医生作为专业人员工作的必要条件。然而,在临床背景下,专业与歧义耐受性之间的关系尚未得到充分研究。在这里,我们调查了临床背景下专业与模糊容忍之间的关系,重点是家庭医生(FPs)和非FPs之间的差异。方法我们在日本进行了一项全国性的横断面研究。我们邀请了来自日本14个家庭医学住院医师项目的实习医生和来自日本一家互联网调查公司的非实习医生参与这项研究。我们使用日语版医学生和医生的歧义容忍度(J-TAMSAD)量表来评估他们对歧义的容忍度。结果共有388名医生(178名FPs和210名非FPs)完成了我们的匿名在线调查,并被纳入分析。在对可能的混杂因素(性别和研究生年限)进行调整后,FPs的J-TAMSAD量表得分高于内科医生/儿科医生、外科医生和其他专业的医生,这意味着FPs具有更大的歧义容忍度。结论:本研究表明,在临床环境中,FPs患者比非FPs患者对歧义有更大的耐受性。我们的研究结果表明,可能需要通过教育干预来提高非计划生育患者对临床环境中特定模糊性的容忍度,因为模糊性在当今医学中是固有的,并且在不断增长。FPs和非FPs应该一起工作,互补对方的优势,而不是简单地提高非FPs的训练。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Family physicians have greater ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context: A nationwide cross-sectional study

Background

Ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context is increasingly recognized as essential for physicians to work as professionals. However, the relationship between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context has been understudied. Here, we investigated the association between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context, focusing on differences between family physicians (FPs) and non-FPs.

Methods

We performed a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan. We asked FPs from 14 family medicine residency programs across Japan and non-FPs from monitors of an internet survey company in Japan to participate in the study. We assessed their tolerance for ambiguity using the Japanese version of the Tolerance for Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (J-TAMSAD) scale.

Results

In total, 388 physicians (178 FPs and 210 non-FPs) completed our anonymous online survey and were included in the analysis. After adjustment for possible confounders (gender and postgraduate years), FPs had higher J-TAMSAD scale scores than internists/pediatricians, surgeons, and physicians with other specialties, meaning that FPs had greater ambiguity tolerance.

Conclusions

This study reveals that FPs had greater tolerance for ambiguity in the clinical context than non-FPs. Our findings suggest that there may be a need to increase non-FP's tolerance for ambiguity specific to the clinical context through educational interventions, since ambiguity is inherent and growing in medicine today. FPs and non-FPs should work together to complement each other's strengths, rather than simply improving the training of non-FPs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of General and Family Medicine
Journal of General and Family Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
79
审稿时长
48 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信