Cross-sectional study evaluates defensive medical behaviors in surgeons, highlighting sociodemographic associations.
Aims: To evaluate defensive medical behaviors among general surgeons in Southeastern Anatolia and to examine their associations with selected sociodemographic and professional characteristics. Cross-sectional analytical study.Methods: General surgeons working in Southeastern Anatolia in 2025 were invited via Turkish Medical Association channels and hospital WhatsApp groups; the survey link was sent individually and completed online with one reminder. Of 138 invited surgeons, 64 completed the survey (46.4%), with no incomplete responses. Data were collected using a 38-item survey instrument (30 Likert-type items on defensive medicine attitudes and practices 8 demographic/professional questions) refined through structured expert review and pilot-tested before field implementation from three cities. Negatively worded items were reverse-scored, a composite mean score (1-5) was calculated, and internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Group comparisons were performed using appropriate parametric or non-parametric tests.Results: A total of 64 surgeons participated (46.4%). The mean composite defensive behavior score was 3.42±0.59 (range 1.61-4.32) the instrument showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α=0.912). Higher scores were observed higher among married versus unmarried surgeons (3.55±0.54 vs 3.18±0.68; p=0.039), surgeons with versus without children (3.50±0.57 vs 3.29±0.45; p=0.047), and those working outside versus in their hometown (3.53±0.46 vs 3.28±0.72; p=0.027). No significant differences were found according to years in practice, annual surgical volume, malpractice lawsuit history, or workplace type.Conclusion: Defensive medical behavior was common in this sample and was associated with selected personal and contextual characteristics. These findings should be interpreted cautiously in view of the cross-sectional design and small subgroup sizes, and they warrant confirmation in larger multicenter studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Melik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: