Dados do Trabalho

Título

SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF BRAZILIAN PARTICIPANTS OF A MEDICAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES INSTRUMENT: A LATIN AMERICAN COOPERATIVE ONCOLOGY GROUP (LACOG) AND ACADEMY OF LEADERSHIP SCIENCES SWITZERLAND (ALSS) STUDY.

Introdução

We previously published the results of a medical leadership (ML) competencies instrument applied to a sample of Latin-American (LA) physicians specialized in oncology or related fields who held an active leadership position at their institution. This survey disclosed significant differences in the valuation of specific ML competencies by LA physicians as compared to healthcare professionals from North American and European (NA/EU) countries.

Objetivo

The most pronounced differences in the responses were in terms of country of medical practice, so an analysis focused on the Brazilian participants could provide further insights into understanding other subgroup differences.

Método

The current study consists of an analysis of the 135 Brazilian participants (63%), in which we aimed to 1) Compare the responses from the Brazilian participants with those of the NA/EU survey and 2) Perform subgroup analyses within the Brazilian participants.

Resultado

Characteristics of the Brazilian survey population was imbalanced in gender with 84 (62.2%) males. Seventy-one respondents (52.5%) were < 45y, one hundred and eight respondents (80%) had > 10 years of experience in oncology and seventy-five respondents (55.5%) had < 10 years in a leadership position. Sixty-nine percent defined themselves as primarily working in a private institution, and the majority were clinical oncologists (72/53,3%), followed by surgical oncologists (31/22.9%) and other specialists (24/17.7%). The valuation of a set of ML competencies by Brazilian physician-leaders match those of the main study (task management remaining the most valued set of competencies vs. 3rd in the NA/EU survey). However, significant differences were seen in the subgroup analyses: social responsibility competencies were more highly valued by clinical oncologists as compared to others (90.5% vs. 86.6%; p=0.0124), whilst leading others (81.2% vs. 88.2%; p<0.0001) and innovation competencies (85.67% vs. 89.34%; p=0.0166) were placed a lower value by clinical oncologists. No statistically significant differences in the responses were observed between physicians working mainly in the private vs. public sectors, in the male vs. female comparison, and in the analyses that addressed the effect of seniority based on age or years of experience in oncology and in leadership positions.

Conclusão

This analysis provides further evidence for the existence of significant cultural differences within the LA participants, which can significantly affect the valuation of specific ML competencies.