Dispositional Humility Of Clinicians In An Interprofessional Primary Care Environment: A Mixed Methods Study

Figures & data

Figure 1 Dispositional humility allows clinicians to have an accurate self-assessment, be open to new ideas, appreciate the contribution of others, and develop generosity. Dispositional humility in leaders can facilitate character development of team members and create an environment characterized by fairness and equality, transparency, non-punitive consequences for reporting errors and near-misses, and a safe and encouraging environment for performing work. However, dispositional humility must be nurtured and developed through professional training because high educational attainment, career and financial success, and busy schedules may lead to a sense of self-importance and entitlement that can promote separation of team members into hierarchies based on professional disciplines and specialties. Note: this is not structural equation modeling, and the pathways or factors were not statistically analyzed. Copyright © 2019. Dove Medical Press. Reproduced from Sasagawa M, Amieux P. Concept map of dispositional humility among professionals in an interdisciplinary healthcare environment: Qualitative synthesis. J Multidisciplinary Healthcare. 2019;12:543–554.¹

Figure 2 Shows the overall participation in the two phases of data collection. One MD directly contacted the author for interview participation without completing the online survey. Per protocol, this interview data were included.

Figure 3 To illustrate the overall characteristics, each clinician’s HEXACO score was converted to the Z-score based on the reference values. The clinicians showed statistically higher Honesty/Humility, Openness, and Conscientiousness domains compared to the reference group of undergraduate college samples. (n=1,126). *Statistical significance at the alpha level 0.05. **Statistical significance at the alpha level 0.01.

Figure 4 A proposed concept map diagram describing factors associated with dispositional humility and a possible mechanism of how these factors allow clinicians to enhance collaboration among professionals. This figure was made by revising Figure 1 of this article. The three gray scales indicate a new theme/category that appeared in this study (bold), a theme/category that was confirmed by the qualitative analysis (regular), and themes/categories which did not appear in the interview (gray scale).

Table 1 Scientific Rigor Of This Qualitative Analysis (Partly From Lincoln Y, guba¹⁸)

Rigor Component	Collection And Analysis Of Interview Data
Credibility (internal validity)	Obtain positive and negative data (easy/hard, facilitative/disruptive personality and environment), empower participants with positive interactions during the interview, hiding the real agenda (dispositional humility) in ethical ways (IRB approved per protocol)
Dependability (reliability, consistency or stability of data)	(weakness) short interview session (20−30 min interview time), attempt to weight the input from different clinical credentials, expanding the subject of humility when it was brought up by participants, repeated coding for interpretive saturation referring to the repetition of coding on different days
Confirmability (objectivity)	Inductive content analysis but based on the created concept map, offering modest incentive for busy subjects, conscious effort at reflexivity during the interview
Transferability (external validity)	Sample from different clinical credentials or training backgrounds, clinics, and no other stratification
Neutrality^Citation19	The sociologist Ann Oakley in 1981^Citation20 argued that Neutrality makes the interviewee an object and does not support a cooperative engagement relationship from a social constructionism perspective. The PI found that it was necessary to separate the interviewer’s self-portrayal of humility from that of the interviewee so that neutrality was maintained.

Sasagawa M, Amieux P. Concept map of dispositional humility among professionals in an interdisciplinary healthcare environment: qualitative synthesis. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:543–554.31410013

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications; 1985.

 Google Scholar

Repley T. Interviews In: Seale C, Gobo G, Gubrium J, Silverman D, editors. Qualitative Research Practice. London: SAGE Publications; 2007:15–33.

 Google Scholar

Oakley A. Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms? In: Roberts H, editor. Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1981:30–61.

 Google Scholar