Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Die Arztrolle in der „medical drama“-Falle?

Physician’s role in “medical drama” pitfall? Reflection of stereotypical images of doctors in context of contemporary doctor‘s series

Reflexion stereotyper Arztcharaktere im Kontext zeitgenössischer TV-Serien

  • Published:
MMW - Fortschritte der Medizin Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

In zeitgemäßen US-Ärzteserien werden die Charaktere meist durch attraktive oder charaktertypische Schauspieler dargestellt. Das Ziel unserer Pilotstudie war es, zu untersuchen, ob die langjährige Prägung der deutschen Zuschauer durch dieses Fernsehformat einen Einfluss auf die Arztwahl in Deutschland haben könnte. Hierzu wurden in Antizipation der TV-Konsummuster zwei verschiedene Personengruppen befragt: Eine erste Gruppe jüngerer Erwachsener wurde gebeten, über ein onlinegestütztes Umfragetool vier von uns herausgearbeitete, stereotype Arztcharaktere, die von den Sehgewohnheiten als bekannt vorausgesetzt wurden, hinsichtlich dreier Kriterien (Sympathie, fachliche Kompetenz und eigene Behandlungspräferenz) zu bewerten. Der zweiten Gruppe von Erwachsenen jenseits des 40. Lebensjahres wurden Fotos der Serienfiguren gezeigt, ohne dass deren Bekanntheit vorausgesetzt wurde. Die Studienteilnehmer sollten den „Arzt“ wählen, von dem sie sich am ehesten behandeln lassen würden und dies anhand von zwei vorgegebenen, ausschlaggebenden Gründen (Sympathie oder fachliche Kompetenz) festmachen. Es zeigt sich, dass stereotype Arztbilder nur bei der ersten Personengruppe hohe Zustimmung fanden, während sich die Teilnehmer der zweiten Gruppe mehrheitlich für eine realitätsnähere Darstellung mit durchschnittlicher Erscheinung entschieden.

Abstract

In contemporary U.S. doctor’s series, the characters are usually represented by good-looking or typical character actors. The aim of our pilot study was to investigate whether the long-term impact of this format on German television viewers could have an influence on the choice of doctor in Germany. Two different groups of people anticipating TV consumption patterns were questioned: a first group of younger adults who knew the TV series was asked to judge their doctor choice using a web-based survey tool with respect to three criteria (sympathy, expertise and own treatment preference). The second group of adults beyond the 40th year of life who need not know the TV series were shown photos of the serial figures. Study participants should select the “doctor” of which they would most likely want to be treated and this based on two predetermined reasons (sympathy or expertise). Our results indicate that stereotypical images of doctors found high approval only in the first group of people, while the participants in the second group decided in majority for a more realistic representation of average appearance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

1
2
3

Literatur

  1. Keesey TJ. Health education via television: three TV series in Washington, DC. Public Health Rep 69 (1954), 599–605.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Norman HT. Visual aids to good public relations. 1. TV series on child health is popular. Mod Hosp 87 (1956), 76–78.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Granberry JE, McCarty HJ. Potential unlimited. Michigan TV series reaps public edudcation benefits for the disabled. J Rehabil 29 (1963), 14–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Starin AC. TV series helps nurses keep up with nursing. Hospitals 37 (1963), 77–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. NN (kein Autor gelistet). TV series describes work of NIDR scientists. J Am Dent Assoc 80 (1970), 303.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Czarny MJ, Faden RR, Sugarman J. Bioethics and professionalism in popular television medical dramas. J Med Ethics 36 (2010), 203–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Strauman E, Goodier BC. Not your grandmother’s doctor show: a review of Grey’s anatomy, House, and Nip/Tuck. J Med Humanit 29 (2008), 127–131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kirch DG. From Marcus Welby to Grey’s anatomy: the next generation. MedGenMed 9 (2007), 15.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ye Y, Ward KE. The depiction of illness and related matters in two top-ranked primetime network medical dramas in the United States: a content analysis. J Health Commun 15 (2010), 555–570.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Spike J. Television viewing and ethical reasoning: why watching Scrubs does a better job than most bioethics classes. Am J Bioeth 8 (2008), 11–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hirt C, et al. Medical dramas on television: a brief guide for educators. Med Teach 35 (2013), 237–242.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris D, Willoughby H. Resuscitation on television: realistic or ridiculous? A quantitative observational analysis of the portrayal of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in television medical drama. Resuscitation 80 (2009), 1275–1279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Elkamel F. The use of television series in health education. Health Educ Res 10 (1995), 225–232.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Davin S. Healthy viewing: the reception of medical narratives. Sociol Health Illn 25 (2003), 662–679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Descatha A. Is Dr House a good diagnostics teacher for medical students? Br J Hosp Med (Lond) 70 (2009), 240.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hallam J. Grey’s Anatomy: scalpels, sex and stereotypes. Med Humanit 35 (2009), 60–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schwerthöffer D, Scherr M, Förstl H. Dr. Marvin Monroe und Dr. Zweig: die Psychotherapeuten der Simpsons. Psychiatrische Forschung 1 (2011), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lapostolle F, et al. Dr House, TV, and reality. Am J Med 126 (2013), 171–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Berger E. From Dr. Kildare to Grey’s Anatomy: TV physicians change real patient expectations. Ann Emerg Med 56 (2010), A21–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stinson ME, Heischmidt K. Patients’ perceptions of physicians: a pilot study of the influence of primetime fictional medical shows. Health Mark Q 29 (2012), 66–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Waclawski E. How I use it: Survey Monkey. Occup Med (Lond) 62 (2012), 477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Farooqi H, et al. Effect of Facebook on the life of Medical University students. Int Arch Med 6 (2013), 40.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cain J, Policastri A. Using Facebook as an informal learning environment. Am J Pharm Educ 75 (2011), 207.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gray K, Annabell L, Kennedy G. Medical students’ use of Facebook to support learning: insights from four case studies. Med Teach 32 (2010), 971–976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wikipedia. Scrubs–Die Anfänger. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubs_%E2%80%93_Die_Anf%C3%A4nger#Hauptfiguren (aufgesucht am 15.11.2013).

  26. Wikia. Scrubs-Wiki. http://de.scrubs.wikia.com/wiki/Scrubs-Wiki (aufgesucht am 15.11.2013).

  27. Wikia. Grey’s Anatomy Wiki. http://de.greysanatomy.wikia.com/wiki/Kategorie:Personen (aufgesucht am 15.11.2013).

  28. MyFanBase.de. Emergency Room–Charaktere. http://www.myfanbase.de/serien/?pid=10046 (aufgesucht am 15.11.2013).

  29. Wikipedia. Emergency Room–Die Notaufnahme. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Room_%E2%80%93_Die_Notaufnahme (aufgesucht am 15.11.2013).

  30. Sancho-Aldridge J, Gunter B. Effects of a TV drama series upon public impressions about psychiatrists. Psychol Rep 74 (1994), 163–178.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Krones CJ, et al. Der Arzt in der Wahrnehmung des Patienten: Ein aktuelles Meinungsbild. Der Chirurg 2006(8) (2006), 718–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Witzel K, et al. Einfluss des Fernsehkonsums auf die Angst vor einer Operation. NeuroGeratrie 5 (2008), 57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Donsbach W. Das Ärzteimage in der Bevölkerung–und Folgerungen für die Kommunikation des Berufs. Ärzteblatt Sachsen 5 (2003), 176–181.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jonzon K. Cosmetic medical treatments: why are we so obsessed with beauty–is it nature or nurture? Plast Surg Nurs 29 (2009), 222–225; quiz 226–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bleich SN, et al. How does physician BMI impact patient trust and perceived stigma? Prev Med 57 (2013), 120–124.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Phillips SP, Clarke M. More than an education: the hidden curriculum, professional attitudes and career choice. Med Educ 46 (2012), 887–893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Feingold A. Physical attractiveness and intelligence. J Soc Psychol 118 (1982), 283–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hadjistavropoulos HD, Ross MA, von Baeyer CL. Are physicians’ ratings of pain affected by patients’ physical attractiveness? Soc Sci Med 31 (1990), 69–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Klopper-Kes AH, et al. Stereotypical images between physicians and managers in hospitals. J Health Organ Manag 23 (2009), 216–224.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Jackson VA, et al. A qualitative study of oncologists’ approaches to end-of-life care. J Palliat Med 11 (2008), 893–906.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Aronson J, et al. Unhealthy interactions: the role of stereotype threat in health disparities. Am J Public Health 103 (2013), 50–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bean MG, et al. Evidence of nonconscious stereotyping of Hispanic patients by nursing and medical students. Nurs Res 62 (2013), 362–367.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dovidio JF, Fiske ST. Under the radar: how unexamined biases in decision-making processes in clinical interactions can contribute to health care disparities. Am J Public Health 102 (2012), 945–952.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zylka-Menhorn V. Medien können krank machen. Dtsch Ärztebl 110 (2013), B981.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Witthoft M, Rubin GJ. Are media warnings about the adverse health effects of modern life self-fulfilling? An experimental study on idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF). J Psychosom Res 74 (2013), 206–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Izumi M, et al. Gender role stereotype and poor working condition pose obstacles for female doctors to stay in full-time employment: alumnae survey from two private medical schools in Japan. Tohoku J Exp Med 229 (2013), 233–237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hamberg K. Gender bias in medicine. Womens Health (Lond Engl) 4 (2008), 237–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Young JW. Symptom disclosure to male and female physicians: effects of sex, physical attractiveness, and symptom type. J Behav Med 2 (1979), 159–169.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Wright SM, et al. Attributes of excellent attendingphysician role models. N Engl J Med 339 (1998), 1986–1993.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Krüger-Brand HE. Ärzteimage im Fernsehen: Abschied vom „Halbgott in Weiß“. Dtsch Ärztebl 100 (2003), A–2928/B-2426/C-2280.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Ulm, Ulm, Deutschland

    Moritz Köhler,  Claudia Grabsch,  Maximilian Zellner &  Michael Noll-Hussong

  2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Universitätsklinikum Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 23, D - 89081, Ulm, Deutschland

    Michael Noll-Hussong

Authors
  1. Moritz Köhler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Grabsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maximilian Zellner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Noll-Hussong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Noll-Hussong.

Additional information

This article is part of a supplement not sponsored by the industry.

Interessenkonflikt

Moritz Köhler, Claudia Grabsch, Maximilian Zellner und Michael Noll-Hussong erklären, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Köhler, M., Grabsch, C., Zellner, M. et al. Die Arztrolle in der „medical drama“-Falle?. MMW - Fortschritte der Medizin 156 (Suppl 1), 1–5 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s15006-014-2875-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s15006-014-2875-3

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation