Professional Relationship Between Physicians and Journalists in Bangladesh: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A health care system is intertwined with multiple stakeholders, including government institutions, pharmaceutical companies, patients, hospitals and clinics, health care professionals, health researchers and scientific medical experts, patients and consumer organizations, and media organizations. Physicians and journalists are the key actors who play a significant role in making health care services and health information accessible to the people of a country. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the tensions and alliances between physicians and journalists in Bangladesh, along with identifying strategies that could potentially improve the often contentious relationship and quality of medical journalism. METHODS: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey using the snowball sampling technique from September 2021 to March 2022. Adult Bangladeshi citizens belonging to the two selected professional groups (physicians and journalists), who understood the survey content, and agreed to participate in the survey were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. Both descriptive and logistic regression analyses, including the Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, were performed to determine the differences between groups concerning selected perception-related variables, and the associations of perceptions about lack of trust in each other's knowledge, skills, and professional integrity with background characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 419 participants completed the survey, including 219 physicians and 200 journalists. Among physicians, 53.4% (117/219) reported lower trust toward journalists' professional domain and expertise, whereas 43.5% (87/200) of journalists had lower trust toward physicians' professional domain and expertise. In terms of perception about not having respect for each other, the median value for the physicians was 5 (strongly agree), whereas it was only 3 (agree) for the journalists. We also found that male physicians (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.45, compared with female physicians) and medical officers (AOR 0.30, compared with specialists) had significantly higher odds of lacking trust in journalists' knowledge, skills, and professional integrity. When rating the statement "Regular professional interaction between journalists and doctors may improve the relationship between the professional groups," most physicians (186/219, 84.9%) chose "neither agree nor disagree," whereas most journalists (106/200, 53.0%) stated that they "slightly agree." CONCLUSIONS: Both physicians and journalists in Bangladesh have negative perceptions of each other's professions. However, physicians have a more negative perception of journalists than journalists have of the physicians. Strategies such as a legal framework to identify medical-legal issues in reporting, constructive discussion, professional interaction, and capacity-building training programs may significantly improve the relationship between physicians and journalists.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».