Understanding and assessing medical engagement: a new toolkit and “killer” questions you might want to ask doctors

Purpose Using theory on institutional logics and identity work, we examine why many doctors disengage from their organisations. We also develop a research-based, practical tool to improve medical engagement and medical leadership. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on earlier qualitative research with senior doctors, we developed the medical identity toolkit (MIT) and tested it by analysing responses from 268 senior doctors (55% response rate) in a case organisation. Our analysis employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA), binary logistic regression, area under the received operating curve (AUROC) on quantitative data and thematic analysis of free text items. Findings We found doctors’ identity work in response to shifting logics predicted overall levels of medical engagement. Doctors’ overall levels of medical engagement also predicted their advocacy of their employer as a good place to build a medical career. An EFA produced four factors with eigenvalues greater than three, explaining 32.4% of the variance. Significant differences in the mean factor scores for the first three factors were found across the MIT tertiles (each p < 0.001). Additionally, using binary logistic regression and stepwise selection, we developed a medical engagement index (MEI) containing the sum of scores of four questionnaire items. The AUROC for the MEI model was 0.9687 (95% confidence interval: 0.9478 to 0.9896), with a threshold of 13 (sensitivity and specificity of 88.6 and 90.9% respectively). Practical implications The MIT has strong practical implications for medical professionals in the UK National Health Service (NHS) and other countries. It is grounded in the perspectives of doctors and provides immediate feedback for individual and collective reflection on medical engagement and doctors' suitability for medical leadership. Originality/value The paper enhances our understanding of medical engagement among senior doctors by examining it through the lenses of medical professional identities, identity work and institutional logics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance
Published
2025-04-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1108/joepp-07-2024-0326
Primary Topic
Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Understanding and assessing medical engagement: a new toolkit and “killer” questions you might want to ask doctors

Harry Staines, Stacey Bushfield, Graeme Martin
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and Performance
Primary Care and Health Outcomes
article

Understanding and assessing medical engagement: a new toolkit and “killer” questions you might want to ask doctors

Harry Staines, Stacey Bushfield, Graeme Martin
article en

Abstract

Purpose Using theory on institutional logics and identity work, we examine why many doctors disengage from their organisations. We also develop a research-based, practical tool to improve medical engagement and medical leadership. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on earlier qualitative research with senior doctors, we developed the medical identity toolkit (MIT) and tested it by analysing responses from 268 senior doctors (55% response rate) in a case organisation. Our analysis employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA), binary logistic regression, area under the received operating curve (AUROC) on quantitative data and thematic analysis of free text items. Findings We found doctors’ identity work in response to shifting logics predicted overall levels of medical engagement. Doctors’ overall levels of medical engagement also predicted their advocacy of their employer as a good place to build a medical career. An EFA produced four factors with eigenvalues greater than three, explaining 32.4% of the variance. Significant differences in the mean factor scores for the first three factors were found across the MIT tertiles (each p < 0.001). Additionally, using binary logistic regression and stepwise selection, we developed a medical engagement index (MEI) containing the sum of scores of four questionnaire items. The AUROC for the MEI model was 0.9687 (95% confidence interval: 0.9478 to 0.9896), with a threshold of 13 (sensitivity and specificity of 88.6 and 90.9% respectively). Practical implications The MIT has strong practical implications for medical professionals in the UK National Health Service (NHS) and other countries. It is grounded in the perspectives of doctors and provides immediate feedback for individual and collective reflection on medical engagement and doctors' suitability for medical leadership. Originality/value The paper enhances our understanding of medical engagement among senior doctors by examining it through the lenses of medical professional identities, identity work and institutional logics.

Journal of Organizational Effectiveness People and PerformanceVol. 13(2)
University of Dundee (GB), Edinburgh Napier University (GB), Statistical Service (CY)
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Primary Care and Health Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.