Cross-Cultural Validity Study of a Medical Education Leadership Competencies Instrument in Latin American Physicians: A Multinational Study

• Main Authors: Max S. Mano, Rafaela Gomes, Gustavo Werutsky, Carlos H. Barrios, Gustavo Nader Marta, Cynthia Villarreal-Garza, Antonio Luiz Frasson, Cinthya Sternberg, Renan Clara, Sergio D. Simon, Fadil Çitaku, Marianne Waldrop, Claudio Violato, Don Zillioux, Yawar Hayat Khan
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: American Society of Clinical Oncology 2019-11-01
• Series: Journal of Global Oncology
• Online Access: http://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JGO.19.00243

PURPOSE: Physicians rarely receive formal training in leadership skills. Çitaku and colleagues have identified a set of leadership competencies (LCs) providing validity evidence in North American (NA) and European Union (EU) medical education institutions. We aim to apply this same survey to a sample of Latin American (LA) medical leaders from the oncology community and related areas, compare the results with those of the previous survey, and perform subgroup analyses within the LA cohort. METHODS: The survey was sent to nearly 8,000 physicians of participating professional organizations. In addition to the 63 questions, we also collected data on the type of institution, country, specialty, sex, age, years of experience in oncology, and leadership position. RESULTS: The 217 LA respondents placed the highest value on task management competencies (91.37% reported these as important or very important v 87.0% of NA/EU respondents; P < .0001), followed by self-management (87.45% of LA respondents v 87.55% of NA/EU respondents; P = not significant [NS]), social responsibility (86.83% of LA respondents v 87.48% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), innovation (86.69% of LA respondents v 85.31% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS), and leading others (83.31% of LA respondents v 84.71% of NA/EU respondents; P = NS). Social responsibility, which was first in importance in the NA/EU survey, was only third in the LA survey. Subgroup analyses showed significant variations in the ratings of specific LCs within the LA population. CONCLUSION: LCs valued by LA leaders somewhat differ from those valued by their NA and EU counterparts, implying that cultural aspects might influence the perception of desired LCs. We also detected variations in the responses within the LA population. Our data indicate that current physician leadership training programs should be tailored to suit specific needs and cultural aspects of each region. Further validity studies of this instrument with other samples and cultures are warranted.