The system of values of paediatricians, paediatricians-in-training, and medical students

Abstract

Aim of the study: Ethics and a system of values are crucial for doctors in their professional life. The aim of the presented study was to compare the system of values of medical students and paediatricians, paediatricians in-training, and other specialist doctors working in paediatric departments. Additionally, the position of profession in the hierarchy of life values in the groups mentioned above was analysed. Material and methods: A total of 379 respondents participated in the study – 151 resident paediatricians and specialists working in paediatric departments in the tertiary paediatric reference centre and 228 students of the Medical Faculty. A professionally designed questionnaire consisting of 14 questions in two versions was used. Questions concerning the issues of values important in life and the axiological sources pivotal in worldview shaping were analysed. Results: Students most often chose: domestic bliss (66%), good health (35%), and helping other people (34%). The physicians listed the values accordingly: domestic bliss (75%), retaining good health (48%), and profession (29%). Students ranked fame and success higher, while physicians appreciated a decent life more. The axiological sources were concordant in both groups, namely one’s own reflections and parents’ opinion. We found no statistical differences between students and physicians. A strong correlation of answers in both groups was proved using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rs = 0.96). Conclusions: The study showed that professional work for medical students and doctors dealing with children held a high place in the system of values but was not the most important thing in life. Domestic bliss, retaining good health, or a decent life were more important. According to the study it can be hypothesised that the system of values represented by paediatricians does not change significantly in the course of professional training although one cannot generalise to the whole country because the study was from a single centre.