How neurologists are viewed by their colleagues: exploring stereotypes and social representations of neurologists.

INTRODUCTION: The choice of medical specialization is influenced by various factors, including personal, educational, and interpersonal aspects. However, stereotypes and social representations (SRs) can also play a significant role in biasing the choice of a particular medical specialty. The aim of this study is to describe and understand the social representation (SR) of French Neurologist among medical peers, and factors explaining stereotypes about neurology. METHODS: A nationwide web-based survey was sent to the French medical community (students, residents, and graduated physicians) to collect sociodemographic and professional data, status, experience, and acquaintance in Neurology as well as qualitative hierarchical evocation question to assess the SR of French Neurologists. RESULTS: Overall, 367 people participated in the survey, including 112 medical students, 170 residents, and 85 graduated physicians. Only 14.3% of students listed neurology among their top 5 specialty choices, and 63.8% disagreed with the statement "I could have chosen (or I will choose) neurology after the validation of my 6th year of medical studies." Qualitative analysis revealed that the most frequently occurring words used to describe neurologists were "stroke", "complicated", "no treatment," "clinical", and "brain" and five themes corresponded to SRs of neurologist: his/her personal and professional traits (36.4% of the corpus), his/her daily practice (18.1%), the negative aspects of the neurological practice (15.3%), and the neurological pathology and daily skills (30.2%). CONCLUSION: The perception of neurologists by other physicians is nuanced. Neurologists are described as rigorous specialists, maybe excessively so but the cliché of a contemplative specialty with no effective treatment remains. The specialty and neurological patients suffer also from a reputation of complexity. Further interventions among medical students and better information are required to increase the attractiveness of our specialty.

Medical oncologist stereotypes among medical students, residents and physicians: a national cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The perception of oncologists could impact the attractiveness of the specialty and dialogue between oncologists and other physicians. The aim of the study was to describe and understand the stereotypes and social representation (SR) associated with oncologists among medical students, residents and physicians in France. METHODS: This nationwide web-based survey conducted in 2021 was based on hierarchical evocation methods. Qualitative analyses were based on the Reinert method with factorial analyses. Each respondent's SR was graded from 1 to 5 (from 1: very positive SR to 5: very negative SR). RESULTS: Oncologists suffer from a rather negative SR. The negative representation was mostly related to difficulties in practising and the proximity with death and end of life. Oncologists were also associated with more positive notions like interdisciplinarity or intellectual complexity. Attendance to an oncology course was associated with a better SR of oncology (p=0.036), whereas having someone in the family practising oncology had a negative impact (p=0.028). CONCLUSIONS: SR of oncologists is rather contrasted. It was positively influenced by attendance to an oncology course, which could be an option to correct stereotypes and update on this rapidly evolving specialty.

How do medical students, residents and graduated physicians really perceive radiologists? A cross-national study.

BACKGROUND: Radiology has always been an attractive specialty for residents, but its attractiveness has recently decreased in France regarding the median choice rank after at the National Residency Board. AIM: To study Radiologists' perceptions and social representations (SRs) among a group of medical students, residents and graduated physicians in France, to better understand the view of Radiologists to debunk stereotypes. METHODS: The nationwide web-based survey was based on valid hierarchical evocation methods. We determined the corpus's central core and SRs' principal themes with prototypical and correspondence factor analysis (CFA), respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 419 answers were analyzed. Radiologists' SRs were divided into 3 classes: negative stereotypes of Radiologists, negative stereotypes of the Radiologists' daily practice and Radiologists' skills. After multivariate analysis, variables that seemed to have a positive influence on Radiologists' SRs were considering radiology as a potential choice of specialty (p < 0.001) and the existence of practical experience in Radiology (p = 0.008). Women seemed to have a more negative SR of Radiologists than men (p = 0.035). DISCUSSION: This was the largest qualitative study on the subject and the only one among medical students, residents and graduated physicians, allowing a global picture. SRs of Radiologists seemed to be negative, potentially caused by poor knowledge of the Radiologists' profession. CONCLUSION: SRs of Radiologists among medical students and graduated physicians appears to be negative. Promoting the specialty among medical students and encouraging their immersion in a Radiology department could help to debunk many stereotypes about the daily life and missions of Radiologists.

What do medical students and graduated physicians think about infectious disease specialists?

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the social representation and stereotypes on infectious disease (ID) specialists among medical students and physicians in France after the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A survey applying the hierarchical evocation model assessed the social representations (SRs) of ID specialists. RESULTS: All in all, 372 answers were analyzed. The positive elements related to the personal and professional qualities of ID specialists ('intellectual prestige", "open-mindedness"), in contrast with negative stereotypes related to their perceived daily life and practice characteristics ("hospital-based", "intense", "overspecialized"). Variables such as "I would not have chosen (or I won't choose) ID after the national ranking exam" and "I know someone who is an ID specialist" were associated with worse SR scores (p < 0.001 and p = 0.022 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide insights into the attractiveness of ID as a specialty. Rounds in ID departments may enhance the interest of the specialty as a possible residency choice.

Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, and Collaboration: Assessment, Certification, and Promotion of 21st Century Skills for the Future of Work and Education.

This article addresses educational challenges posed by the future of work, examining "21st century skills", their conception, assessment, and valorization. It focuses in particular on key soft skill competencies known as the "4Cs": creativity, critical thinking, collaboration, and communication. In a section on each C, we provide an overview of assessment at the level of individual performance, before focusing on the less common assessment of systemic support for the development of the 4Cs that can be measured at the institutional level (i.e., in schools, universities, professional training programs, etc.). We then present the process of official assessment and certification known as "labelization", suggesting it as a solution both for establishing a publicly trusted assessment of the 4Cs and for promoting their cultural valorization. Next, two variations of the "International Institute for Competency Development's 21st Century Skills Framework" are presented. The first of these comprehensive systems allows for the assessment and labelization of the extent to which development of the 4Cs is supported by a formal educational program or institution. The second assesses informal educational or training experiences, such as playing a game. We discuss the overlap between the 4Cs and the challenges of teaching and institutionalizing them, both of which may be assisted by adopting a dynamic interactionist model of the 4Cs-playfully entitled "Crea-Critical-Collab-ication"-for pedagogical and policy-promotion purposes. We conclude by briefly discussing opportunities presented by future research and new technologies such as artificial intelligence and virtual reality.

Evolution and impact of self-efficacy during French COVID-19 confinement: a longitudinal study.

Based on social cognitive theory, we propose that self-efficacy is a personal resource that protects people from the impact of confinement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a longitudinal study where 197 French citizens were surveyed over 8 weeks of confinement (though only 25 participants responded each of these 8 weeks), we examined the relationships between general self-efficacy and positive affect, negative affect and adaptive performance at work. Consistent with theoretical expectations, self-efficacy was relatively stable during confinement and was positively related to positive affect and negatively related to negative affect. Self-efficacy was also positively correlated with all dimensions of adaptive performance at work during confinement. The role of self-efficacy as a protective factor against depressive risks induced by the stressful COVID-19 pandemic is discussed.

COVID-19: A Boon or a Bane for Creativity?

In many countries, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a period of lockdown that impacted individuals' lifestyles, in both professional and personal spheres. New problems and challenges arose, as well as opportunities. Numerous studies have examined the negative effects of lockdown measures, but few have attempted to shine light on the potential positive effects that may come out of these measures. We focused on one particular positive outcome that might have emerged from lockdown: creativity. To this end, this paper compared self-reported professional creativity (Pro-C) and everyday creativity (little-c) before and during lockdown, using a questionnaire-based study conducted on a French sample (N = 1266). We expected participants to be more creative during than prior to lockdown, in both professional and everyday spheres. Regarding Pro-C, we did not see any significant differences between the two comparison points, before and during lockdown. Regarding everyday creativity, we observed a significant increase during lockdown. Furthermore, our results suggest that participants with a lower baseline creativity (before lockdown) benefited more from the situation than those with a higher initial baseline creativity. Our results provide new insights on the impact of lockdown and its positive outcomes. These measures may have inarguably negative consequences on the physical and mental health of many, but their positive impact exists as well.