Strides in Development of Medical Education

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Medical Education, School of Medical Education Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of E-learning in Medical Education, Virtual School, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran


Background A universal challenge in the development of medical training methods is the description and characteristics of a good physician. It is essential to collect the information of hospitalized patients and their families in order to revise the curricula of medical departments. Objectives The present study aimed to explain the viewpoints of patients and their families about the key characteristics of a good physician. Methods The present study was carried out using inductive content analysis in 2017. The study sample consisted of patients admitted to different wards of Imam Khomeini Hospital (Tehran, Iran), as well as family members accompanying the patients. Data were collected via purposeful sampling (maximum variation sampling) by conducting semi-structured interviews until reaching data saturation. After the recorded interviews were transcribed, they were reviewed several times and analyzed using Elo and Kyngas coding system. Results A total of 19 participants, including 13 patients and six accompanying family members, were recruited in the present study (11 males and 8 females). The analysis of interviews with the participants indicated seven major categories: “Positive personality traits”; “academic and clinical proficiency”; “professionalism”; “effective communication skills”; “fairness and altruism”; “spirituality”; and “continuous professional development”. Conclusions The definition of a good physician by patients and their families has different implications in educational programs, as future physicians not only can benefit from education about the medical needs of their patients, but also should be familiar with the needs, fears, and concerns of their patients.


  1. Gale-Grant O, Gatter M, Abel P. Developing ideas of professionalism. Clin Teach. 2013;10(3):165–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00643.x. [PubMed: 23656678].
  2. Van De Camp K, Vernooij-Dassen MJ, Grol RP, Bottema BJ. How to conceptualize professionalism: A qualitative study. Med Teach. 2004;26(8):696–702. doi: 10.1080/01421590400019518. [PubMed:15763872].
  3. Garfield JM, Garfield FB, Hevelone ND, Bhattacharyya N, Dedrick DF, Ashley SW, et al. Doctors in acute and longitudinal care specialties emphasise different professional attributes: Implications for training programmes. Med Educ. 2009;43(8):749–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03411.x. [PubMed:19659488].
  1. Dent J, Harden RM. A practical guide for medical teachers. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Elsevier; 2009.
  2. General Medical Council. Good medical practice. 2013. Available from:
  3. Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Steinert Y. Teaching medical professionalism: Supporting the development of a professionalidentity. 2nd ed. Cambridg, UK:Cambridge University Press; 2016. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316178485.
  4. Rabow MW, Remen RN, Parmelee DX, Inui TS. Professional formation: Extending medicine’s lineage of service into the next century. Acad Med. 2010;85(2):310–7. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181c887f7. [PubMed:20107361].
  5. Haidet P, Stein HF. The role of the student-teacher relationship in the formation of physicians. The hidden curriculum as process. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21 Suppl 1:S16–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00304.x. [PubMed: 16405704]. [PubMed Central: PMC1484835].
  6. Martin S. What is a good doctor? Patient perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(4):752–4. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70486-7. [PubMed: 9579438].
  7. Bendapudi NM, Berry LL, Frey KA, Parish JT, Rayburn WL. Patients’ perspectives on ideal physician behaviors. Mayo Clin Proc. 2006;81(3):338–44. doi: 10.4065/81.3.338. [PubMed: 16529138].
  8. Luthy C, Cedraschi C, Perrin E, Allaz AF. How do patients define "good" and "bad" doctors? Swiss Med Wkly. 2005;135(5-6):82–6. [PubMed:15729612].
  9. Miratashi Yazdi SN, Nedjat S, Arbabi M, Majdzadeh R. Who is a good doctor? patients and physicians’ perspectives. Iran J Public Health. 2015;44(1):150–2. [PubMed: 26060792]. [PubMed Central:PMC4450008].
  10. Moein A, Seyed Mortaz S. [Good physicians from the perspective patients]. Eth sci Tech. 2014; 9(1): 1–9. Persian.
  11. Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, Ferreira P, Hearnshaw H, Hjortdahl P, et al. Patients’ priorities with respect to general practice care: An international comparison. European task force on patient evaluations of general practice (europep). Fam Pract. 1999;16(1):4–11. [PubMed:10321388].
  12. Elo S, Kyngas H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107–15. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. [PubMed:18352969].
  13. Zhang Y, Wildemuth BM. Qualitative analysis of content. In: Wildemuth BM, editor. Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science. ABC-CLIO; 2016. 308 p.
  14. Hays DG, Singh AA. Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York: Guilford Press; 2012.
  15. Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. J Mix Method Res. 2007; 1(1): 77–100. doi: 10.1177/1558689806292430.
  16. Lindlof TR, Taylor BC. Qualitative communication research methods. 3rd ed. London: SAGE; 2011.
  17. Cuesta-Briand B, Auret K, Johnson P, Playford D. ’A world of difference’: A qualitative study of medical students’ views on professionalism and the ’good doctor’. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:77. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-77. [PubMed: 24725303]. [PubMed Central: PMC3992127].
  18. Lambe P, Bristow D. What are the most important non-academic attributes of good doctors? A Delphi survey of clinicians. Med Teach. 2010;32(8):e347–54. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.490603. [PubMed:20662569].