You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Short report
Medical oncologist stereotypes among medical students, residents and physicians: a national cross-sectional study
  1. Max Piffoux1,2,
  2. Matthieu Delaye3,4,
  3. Evan Gouy5,
  4. Franck Rolland6,
  5. Linh-Nam Truong7,8,
  6. Ariel Frajerman9,
  7. Florent Vinchon10 and
  8. Nawale Hadouiri11
  1. 1 Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France
  2. 2 Medical Oncology, Centre Leon Berard, Lyon, France
  3. 3 Association pour l’Enseignement et la Recherche des Internes en Oncologie (AERIO), Paris, France
  4. 4 Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France
  5. 5 Department of Medical Genetics, University Hospital of Lyon, Lyon, France
  6. 6 CESP-Inserm, U1018, Research in Ethics and Epistemology (R2E), Paris-Sud University, Paris-Saclay University, Inserm, Paris, France
  7. 7 ISNI (InterSyndicale Nationale des Internes), Paris, France
  8. 8 Faculté de Médecine, Université de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Dijon, France
  9. 9 Department of Psychiatry, Université Paris-Saclay, AP-HP, Hôpital de Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
  10. 10 Université Paris Cité et Université Gustave Eiffel, LaPEA, Boulogne-Billancourt, France
  11. 11 Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Center Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Matthieu Delaye, Association pour l’Enseignement et la Recherche des Internes en Oncologie (AERIO), 75014, Paris, France; mdelaye{at}sfr.fr

Abstract

Objectives The perception of oncologists could impact the attractiveness of the specialty and dialogue between oncologists and other physicians. The aim of the study was to describe and understand the stereotypes and social representation (SR) associated with oncologists among medical students, residents and physicians in France.

Methods This nationwide web-based survey conducted in 2021 was based on hierarchical evocation methods. Qualitative analyses were based on the Reinert method with factorial analyses. Each respondent’s SR was graded from 1 to 5 (from 1: very positive SR to 5: very negative SR).

Results Oncologists suffer from a rather negative SR. The negative representation was mostly related to difficulties in practising and the proximity with death and end of life. Oncologists were also associated with more positive notions like interdisciplinarity or intellectual complexity. Attendance to an oncology course was associated with a better SR of oncology (p=0.036), whereas having someone in the family practising oncology had a negative impact (p=0.028).

Conclusions SR of oncologists is rather contrasted. It was positively influenced by attendance to an oncology course, which could be an option to correct stereotypes and update on this rapidly evolving specialty.

  • Cancer
  • Communication
  • Education and training

https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2023-004679

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @DelayeMatthieu, @FlorentVinchon

    • Contributors EG, AF, FR, L-NT, FV and NH contributed to the study conceptualisation, study methodology, questionnaire elaboration, the distribution of the questionnaire and the study investigation. NH contributed to the supervision and coordination of the SESAME Project with Association pour l’Enseignement et la Recherche des Internes en Oncologie (AERIO). MP and NH made the words' English translation, the qualitative data management and SR rating, while EG was the third reader if disagreement existed. FV made the qualitative statistical analysis. MP and NH made the quantitative statistical analysis. They had access to all the data. MP made the table and NH made the figures. MP, MD and NH made the original draft preparation of the manuscript. EG, AF, FR, L-NT and FV contributed to the writing (review and editing) of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.