Table 4

Free comments regarding two different selection methods

Categories/commentsNumber mentioned
Media personnel selection method (eg, ‘best doctor’ TV programme in Korea)
  Regarding the system
   Not objective6
   The objective criteria are necessary/should be disclosed6
   I know a person who was selected as ‘best doctor’ by the programme, but I do not agree with that decision6
   A media-friendly doctor will be selected4
   The media team of each hospital would lobby in the selection process for the promotion of the hospital3
   Doctors in high-volume centres in metropolitan areas are more likely to be selected3
   Not credible at all3
   Unclear how the best doctors are selected in this programme2
   Will produce ‘celebrity-like’ doctors2
   Media-friendly doctors are not necessarily the best doctors1
   Will be useful as just one of the references1
   May result in patient concentration in high-volume centres1
   Discourages doctors who were not selected1
   Should be discontinued1
Peer-evaluation system (eg, ‘Best doctor in America’)
  Regarding the system
   May be biased without objective data (patient volume, mortality, research)8
   Can be biased by personal relationships (alumni, etc)7
   Advantageous to doctors in high-volume centres4
   Difficult to evaluate doctors who you do not know4
   Agree with the peer-rating system (doctors are the only ones who can evaluate other doctors)3
   Doctors do not know how other doctors perform2
   Susceptible to lobbying or political power2
   Advantageous to senior physicians2
   May result in concentration in high-volume centres2
   Could serve as a reference for selecting doctors, but is not useful beyond that2
   May be credible, but not fair or valid1
   Not credible at all1
   Sensationalised information1
   Recommendations from patients and/or family members are also important2
   Recommendations from junior doctors are more reliable.1
  • Number mentioned: number of physicians who provided free comments similar to listed items.