Relationships Between Medical Doctors’ Personality Traits and Their Professional Risk Perception
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Method
2.1. First Stage of the Research: Identifying Cognitive Representations of Risk (CRRs) in Medicine
2.1.1. Participants and Procedure
2.1.2. Methods
2.2. Second Stage of the Research: Establishing Relationships Between Traits and CRRs
2.2.1. Participants
2.2.2. Procedure
2.2.3. Methods and Outcome Measures
- Scales for cognitive representations of risks (CRRs) evaluation (see Section 3.1).
- Personal Decision-Making Factors Questionnaire [15]: This questionnaire consists of 21 yes-or-no statements and measures two sub-scales: personal risk-readiness, the ability to make decisions in uncertain situations with a lack of necessary information, and rationality, personal preference to get as much information as possible to increase awareness before acting.
- Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire [26], in the Russian adaptation [27]. The Russian variant retains the 22-statements structure and measures 4 coping patterns: vigilance, hypervigilance, buck-passing, and procrastination. Vigilance is the only productive coping mechanism, as it is associated with orientation and caution; others are unproductive. Buck-passing is avoiding independent decision-making, procrastination is an unjustified postponement of the decision-making, and hypervigilance is an excessive fluctuation between alternatives.
- Budner’s Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale [30], in the Russian adaptation [31]. The Russian scale consists of 13 statements with a 7-point Likert scale. In has 2 sub-scales: tolerance for ambiguity, which is a tendency to perceive ambiguous and uncertain situations as desirable, and intolerance for ambiguity, which is the rejection of ambiguous and uncertain situations in the strive for clarity.
2.2.4. Statistical Methods
3. Results
3.1. Qualitative Research Results (results of the first stage)
3.2. Correlational Analysis
3.3. Personality Traits and CRRs Aspects Evaluation Scores in Relation to Professional Experience and Gender
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
1. Get a penalty | 12. Make a mistake while performing a procedure |
2. Assess the situation wrong | |
3. Ruin the relationship with the boss | 13. Get a subpoena |
4. Fall from a great height | 14. Do not see significant others enough |
5. Be a victim of aggression | 15. Lose your professional reputation |
6. Lose time | 16. Harm the patient |
7. Lose self-esteem | 17. Make a wrong diagnosis |
8. Overestimate yourself | 18. Break expensive medical equipment |
9. Lose the patient | 19. Lose health at work |
10. Get psychological overload | 20. Quarrel with colleagues |
11. Have equipment out of order | 21. Get into bad weather |
References
- Bhise, V.; Rajan, S.S.; Sittig, D.F.; Morgan, R.O.; Chaudhary, P.; Singh, H. Defining and measuring diagnostic uncertainty in medicine: A systematic review. J. Gen. Int. Med. 2017, 33, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Strout, T.D.; Hillen, M.; Gutheil, C.; Andersen, E.; Hutchinson, R.; Ward, H.; Kay, H.; Mills, G.J.; Han, P.K.J. Tolerance of uncertainty: A systematic review of health and healthcare-related outcomes. Patient Educ. Couns. 2018, 101, 1518–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow, 1st ed.; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, NY, USA, 2013; ISBN 978-0374533557. [Google Scholar]
- Perneger, T.V.; Agoritsas, T. Doctors and patients’ susceptibility to framing bias: A randomized trial. J. Gen. Int. Med. 2011, 26, 1411–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Blumenthal-Barby, J.S.; Krieger, H. Cognitive Biases and heuristics in medical decision making. Med. Decis. Mak. 2014, 35, 539–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Donner-Banzhof, N.; Seidel, J.; Sikeler, A.M.; Bösner, S.; Vogelmeier, M.; Westram, A.; Gaissmaier, W.; Wegwarth, O.; Gigerenzer, G. The phenomenology of the diagnostic process: A primary care-based survey. Med. Decis. Mak. 2017, 37, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grove, M.W.; Zald, D.H.; Lebow, B.S.; Snitz, B.E.; Nelson, C. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Assess. 2000, 12, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anthony, D.; Parboteeah, S.; Saleh, M.; Papanikolaou, P. Norton, Waterlow and Braden scores: A review of the literature and a comparison between the scores and clinical judgement. J. Clin. Nurs. 2008, 17, 646–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCulloch, P.; Kaul, A.; Wagstaff, G.F.; Wheatcroft, J. Tolerance of uncertainty, extroversion, neuroticism and attitudes to randomized controlled trials among surgeons and physicians. Br. J. Surg. 2005, 92, 1293–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullola, S.; Hakulinen, C.; Presseau, J.; Ruiz de Porras, D.G.; Jokela, M.; Hintsa, T.; Elovainio, M. Personality traits and career choices among physicians in Finland: Employment sector, clinical patient contact, specialty and change of specialty. Bio Med. Cent. Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pikkel, D.; Pikkel Igal, Y.S.; Sharabi-Nov, A.; Pikkel, J. Are doctors risk takers? Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2016, 9, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lievens, F.; Coetsier, P.; De Fruyt, F.; Maeseneer, J. Medical students′ personality characteristics and academic performance: A five-factor model perspective. Med. Educ. 2002, 36, 1050–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawton, R.; Robinson, O.; Harrison, R.; Mason, S.; Conner, M.; Wilson, B. Are more experienced clinicians better able to tolerate uncertainty and manage risks? A vignette study of doctors in three NHS emergency departments in England. Br. Med. J. Qual. Saf. 2019, 28, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kamenev, I.; Kornilova, T.; Razvalyaeva, A. The Relation between Risk Acceptance, Motivation and Self-Regulation (in Sample of Medical Workers). Vopr. Psikhologii 2018, 1, 127–137, (In Russian, abstr. In English). [Google Scholar]
- Kornilova, T.V.; Chumakova, M.A.; Kornilov, S.A.; Novikova, M.A. Psihologiya Neopredelennosti: Edinstvo Intellektual’no-Lichnostnogo Potenciala Cheloveka; Smysl: Moscow, Russia, 2010; ISBN 978-5-89357-293-3. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Kornilova, T.V. Intellektualno-Lichnostnyi Potentsial Cheloveka v Usloviyakh Neopredelennosti i Riska; Nestor-Isoriya: Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2016; ISBN 978-5-4469-0836-3. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Slovic, P. The Perception of Risk, 1st ed.; Earthscan Publication: London, UK, 2000; ISBN 978-1853835285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gigerenzer, G. Simply Rational: Decision Making in the Real World, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-0199390076. [Google Scholar]
- Heller, R.F.; Saltzstein, H.D.; Caspe, V.B. Heuristics in Medical and Non-Medical Decision-Making. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A 1992, 44, 211–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P.; Fischhoff, B.; Lichtenstein, S. Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk. In Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? Schwing, R.C., Albers, W.A., Jr., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 181–216. [Google Scholar]
- Flanagan, J.C. The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull. 1954, 51, 327–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sternberg, R.J.; Forsythe, G.B.; Hedlund, J.; Horvath, J.A.; Wagner, R.K.; Williams, W.M.; Snook, S.A.; Grigorenko, E. Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-0521659581. [Google Scholar]
- Saunders, B.; Sim, J.; Kingstone, T.; Baker, S.; Waterfield, J.; Bartlam, B.; Burroughs, H.; Jinks, C. Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant 2018, 52, 1893–1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kvale, S. Interview Views: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, 1st ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1996; ISBN 978-0803958203. [Google Scholar]
- Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0803959408. [Google Scholar]
- Mann, L.; Burnett, P.; Radford, M.; Ford, S. The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 1998, 10, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kornilova, T.V. Melbourne decision making questionnaire: A Russian adaptation. Psihol. Issled. 2013, 6, 32. Available online: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/eng/108-v6n31e/894-kornilova31e (accessed on 12 December 2019). (In Russian, abstr. in English).
- Gosling, S.D.; Rentfrow, P.J.; Swann, W.B., Jr. A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. J. Res. Pers. 2003, 37, 504–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kornilova, T.V.; Chumakova, M.A. Development of the Russian version of the brief Big Five questionnaire (TIPI). Psihol. Issled. 2016, 9, 50. Available online: http://www.psystudy.ru/eng/v9n46e/1271-kornilova46e (accessed on 12 December 2019). (In Russian, abstr. In English).
- Budner, S. Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. J. Pers. 1962, 30, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kornilova, T.V.; Chumakova, M.A. Tolerance and intolerance of ambiguity in the modification of Budner’s questionnaire. Eksp. Naya Psikhologiya 2014, 7, 92–110, (In Russian, abstr. in English). [Google Scholar]
- Chauvin, B. Individual differences in the judgment of risks: Sociodemographic characteristics, cultural orientation, and level of expertise. In Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis; Raue, M., Lermer, E., Streicher, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 37–61. ISBN 978-3-319-92478-6. [Google Scholar]
- Bogacheva, N.; Kornilova, T.; Krasavtseva, Y. Relationships between self-assessments, implicit theories of risk and medical workers’ personal risk readiness. Bull. Marit. Stud. Res. Unit Ser. Psychol. 2017, 4, 6–19, (In Russian, abstr. in English). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donnellan, M.B.; Lucas, R.E. Age differences in the Big Five across the life span: Evidence from two national samples. Psychol. Aging 2008, 23, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lauriola, M.; Weller, J. Personality and risk: Beyond daredevils—risk taking from a temperament perspective. In Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis; Raue, M., Lermer, E., Streicher, B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 3–36. ISBN 978-3-319-92478-6. [Google Scholar]
Main Category | Subcategories | 2nd Level Subcategories | N |
---|---|---|---|
1. Doctor-related risks (risks for the doctor and related directly to the doctor’s state or activity) (N = 56) | a. Cognitive risks (medical errors) | i. wrong diagnosis | 11 |
ii. incorrect assessment of the situation | 7 | ||
iii. execution errors | 3 | ||
b. Reputational and self-esteem risks | i. reputation losses | 7 | |
ii. self-esteem loss | 1 | ||
c. Doctor health risks | i. infection | 10 | |
ii. becoming a victim of aggression | 4 | ||
iii. injuries at work | 1 | ||
d. Risks of losing time | i. loss of working time | 2 | |
ii. loss of personal time | 2 | ||
e. Administrative and legal risks | i. being prosecuted | 5 | |
ii. being subjected to internal sanctions | 3 | ||
2. Patient-related risks (risks for the patient and related to the patient’s state or activity) (N = 50) | a. Risks of complications | 29 | |
b. Risks of negative effects of treatment | 11 | ||
c. Lethal risks | 10 | ||
3. Risks related to colleagues and institution (N = 9) | a. Colleagues-related risks | 3 | |
b. Boss-related risks | 2 | ||
c. Institution-related risks | i. damage to the institution | 2 | |
ii. damage by institution | 2 | ||
4. Medicine as science related risks (N = 5) | a. Medicine imperfection | 3 | |
b. Medical research risks | 2 | ||
5. External risk (N = 3) | e.g., weather, ongoing hostilities | 3 | |
6. Abstract risks (N = 2) | e.g., bad luck, chance | 2 |
CRRs Mean Scores and SDs | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (7) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) Perceived riskiness (M = 56.40, SD = 16.39) | 0.509 ** | 0.310 * | 0.634 ** | 0.362 * | |
(2) Predictability (M = 48.39, SD = 15.98) | 0.552 ** | 0.465 ** | 0.425 ** | 0.454 ** | |
(3) Probability in medical practice (M = 48.93, SD = 20.17) | 0.723 ** | 0.355 * | 0.321 * | ||
(4) Probability in the respondent’s practice (M = 35.65, SD = 17.50) | 0.291 * | 0.313 * | |||
(5) Perceived emotion depth (M = 55.61, SD = 19.09) | 0.328 * | ||||
(6) Positive outcome probability (M = 53.18, SD = 18.31) | −0.375 ** | ||||
(7) Negative outcome probability (M = 48.66, SD = 17.10) |
Personality Traits with Means and SDs | CRRs Aspects | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
(2) Predictability | (3) Probability in Medical Practice | (6) Positive Outcome Probability | (7) Negative Outcome Probability | |
(a) Risk-Readiness (M = −0.48, SD = 3.16) | 0.291 * | |||
(b) Rationality (M = 4.94, SD = 3.06) | −0.341 * | |||
(c) Vigilance (M = 16.31, SD = 2.05) | −0.321 * | 0.332 * | ||
(d) Agreeableness (M = 8.74, SD = 1.82) | −0.288 * | |||
(e) Intolerance for Ambiguity (M = 28.90, SD = 7.02) | −0.315 * |
CRRs Mean Scores | Female | Male | Mann–Whitney U-test | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | |||
Perceived riskiness | 60.71 | 14.51 | 48.68 | 17.10 | 192.0 | 0.015 |
Probability in medical practice | 53.17 | 17.64 | 41.34 | 22.58 | 205.0 | 0.029 |
Probability in the respondent’s practice | 40.07 | 16.84 | 27.74 | 16.18 | 165.5 | 0.003 |
Perceived emotion depth | 62.62 | 14.64 | 42.01 | 19.76 | 117.5 | 0.020 |
Negative outcome probability | 52.24 | 16.25 | 41.92 | 17.07 | 171.0 | 0.034 |
Variable | Kruskal–Wallis H-test | p | (1) Young | (2) Exp. | (3) Older | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |||
Risk-Readiness | 6.452 | 0.04 | 0.95 | 3.02 | −1.17 | 3.39 | −1.16 | 2.59 |
Rationality | 9.029 | 0.011 1–3 | 3.95 | 3.17 | 4.43 | 3.30 | 6.58 | 1.87 |
Extraversion | 6.477 | 0.039 2–3 | 8.80 | 2.78 | 7.78 | 2.68 | 9.84 | 2.29 |
Openness | 7.643 | 0.022 1–2 | 11.20 | 1.79 | 9.35 | 2.31 | 10.26 | 2.13 |
Probability in medical practice | 6.111 | 0.047 1–3 | 57.49 | 18.47 | 46.92 | 21.23 | 40.61 | 17.71 |
Probability in the respondent’s practice | 10.914 | 0.004 1–2,1–3 | 45.84 | 17.32 | 32.13 | 18.54 | 27.20 | 8.67 |
Perceived emotion depth | 7.275 | 0.026 1–3 | 59.54 | 19.46 | 59.36 | 16.12 | 45.73 | 19.60 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bogacheva, N.; Kornilova, T.; Pavlova, E. Relationships Between Medical Doctors’ Personality Traits and Their Professional Risk Perception. Behav. Sci. 2020, 10, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010006
Bogacheva N, Kornilova T, Pavlova E. Relationships Between Medical Doctors’ Personality Traits and Their Professional Risk Perception. Behavioral Sciences. 2020; 10(1):6. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010006
Chicago/Turabian StyleBogacheva, Nataliya, Tatiana Kornilova, and Elizaveta Pavlova. 2020. "Relationships Between Medical Doctors’ Personality Traits and Their Professional Risk Perception" Behavioral Sciences 10, no. 1: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010006
APA StyleBogacheva, N., Kornilova, T., & Pavlova, E. (2020). Relationships Between Medical Doctors’ Personality Traits and Their Professional Risk Perception. Behavioral Sciences, 10(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010006