Comparing affective responses to physical disease labels between healthcare professionals and the general public: a web-based cross-sectional survey of stroke, femoral neck fracture, and spinal cord injury


Abstract

Background. Attitudes toward people with physical illnesses and injuries may differ between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and the general public, but findings on differences have been inconsistent. This study used a common measurement framework to compare affective responses to three diagnostic labels for physical conditions—stroke, femoral neck fracture (FNF), and spinal cord injury (SCI)—between HCPs and the general public.

Methods. In a cross-sectional online survey, 400 HCPs and 400 adults from the general public (total N = 800, quota-sampled across sex × age strata) rated the three labels on two scales. The Tendency scale assessed negative emotions and interpersonal avoidance (higher scores = more negative), and the Impression scale assessed perceived physical strength, psychological resilience, and psychological strength (higher scores = more positive). We conducted 2 (group: HCPs vs the general public) × 3 (disease: stroke, FNF, SCI) mixed-design analyses of variance and examined correlations among the five factors, including associations with years of clinical experience among HCPs.

Results. For negative emotions, the group × disease interaction was significant: HCPs scored lower than the general public for stroke and FNF, whereas no group difference was observed for SCI. For interpersonal avoidance, HCPs scored lower than the general public for all three diseases. No group × disease interactions were found for the Impression scale; main effects showed that HCPs rated physical and psychological strength more positively than the general public, while psychological resilience did not differ by group. The disease's main effects were significant for all factors: both negative emotions and interpersonal avoidance followed the order SCI > stroke > FNF, and SCI was also associated with lower perceived physical and psychological strength. Across groups, negative emotions and interpersonal avoidance were moderately correlated, whereas perceived physical strength was not associated with interpersonal avoidance for FNF. Among HCPs, interpersonal avoidance toward FNF showed a weak negative correlation with years of clinical experience

Conclusions. Compared with the general public, HCPs tended to report lower negative emotions and interpersonal avoidance and to attribute greater physical and psychological strength to people described by these diagnostic labels. Both groups, however, shared a similar disease-specific hierarchy of negativity, with SCI evaluated most negatively. These findings suggest influences of professional education and patient contact, while indicating that disease-specific schemas may persist even among professionals. Given the cross-sectional design and the use of hypothetical disease labels rather than observed behavior, longitudinal and interventional studies that control for occupational composition and amount of contact are needed.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].