Responses to two different methods for selecting the ‘best cancer doctor’ (n=678)
| Selection by media personnel (eg, ‘best doctor’ TV programme in Korea) | Peer selection (eg, ‘best doctor in America’) | P values | |||||||||
| Responses (%) | Responses (%) | ||||||||||
| Strongly disagree | Disagree | Agree | Strongly agree | No response | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Agree | Strongly agree | No response | ||
| Reliability | |||||||||||
| The selection method is credible | 26.8 | 63.9 | 9.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 4.4 | 20.9 | 61.4 | 13.3 | 0.0 | <0.001 |
| The selection method is fair | 28.8 | 64.9 | 6.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 4.4 | 30.5 | 57.2 | 7.5 | 0.3 | <0.001 |
| The selection method is valid | 28.2 | 61.5 | 10.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 4.3 | 28.2 | 58.4 | 9.0 | 0.2 | <0.001 |
| Helpfulness of doctor selection | |||||||||||
| The result would be helpful for the patients to select their doctor | 17.6 | 43.8 | 36.1 | 2.4 | 0.2 | 3.1 | 14.8 | 65.8 | 16.4 | 0.0 | <0.001 |
| I would consider this information if one of my family members was affected by cancer | 26.7 | 50.9 | 21.7 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 5.9 | 18.1 | 56.9 | 18.9 | 0.2 | <0.001 |
| Impact on the healthcare system | |||||||||||
| This would help to improve the quality of cancer care | 29.8 | 57.7 | 12.4 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 6.8 | 32.6 | 50.4 | 9.4 | 0.7 | <0.001 |
P value by the McNemar test for paired samples, after dichotomisation of the ‘Agree’ responses with the others.