To the content
2 . 2023



The assessment of medical professionalism does not lose its relevance, since it is associated with the assessment of the quality of training of future doctors and the provision of medical care to the population. Existing tools for assessing the professionalism of doctors in the Russian Federation rarely take into account the opinion of patients or their legal representatives. The International Patient Assessment Tool for Medical Professionalism (IPAMP) includes 11 items and is designed to assess the professionalism of trainees and doctors from the patient’s point of view.

Purpose. Translation into Russian, adaptation and validation of the Patient Assessment Tool for Medical Professionalism (IPAMP).

Material and methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted on the basis of the Arkhangelsk Children’s Dental Clinic of the Arkhangelsk Region to test the reliability and validity of the Russian version of the questionnaire (R-IPAMP). 336 legal representatives of patients (parents) were anonymously interviewed, who assessed the professionalism of 7 dentists with a work experience of no more than 3 years, under the age of 30 years.

Results. Intercultural translation and adaptation of IPAMP into Russian was carried out. Structural and criterion validity of the assessment tool are determined. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for 11 items of the questionnaire was 0.814, which indicates good reliability of the assessment tool, internal consistency of the questionnaire questions and their homogeneity. We analyzed the response data of 336 legal representatives of patients who highly rated the medical professionalism of young doctors (4.56±0.04).

Research limitations. Standardization of the questionnaire requires further study of its convergent and discriminant validity, retest reliability, and factor analysis on a larger sample of respondents.

Conclusion. The proposed version of the Russian version of IPAMP is a valid and reliable tool for assessing medical professionalism on the part of patients and can be used at all stages and levels of medical education, as well as in practical healthcare to receive feedback from patients or their legal representatives in order to correct the educational process and improve interactions in the doctor-patient system.

Keywords:medical professionalism; grade; patients’ opinions; questionnaire, validity; reliability

Funding. The study had no sponsor support.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

For citation: Vasilyeva E.Yu., Semakova A.A., Sungurova M.S. Assessing the professionalism of physicians by patients: translation into Russian, adaptation and validation of the IPAMP questionnaire. Meditsinskoe obrazovanie i professional’noe razvitie [Medical education and professional development]. 2023; 11 (2): 29–38. DOI: (in Russian)


1.Vasilyeva E. Yu., Kuzminskaya T.V. Assessment of communication skills with patients in the process of primary specialized accreditation: realities and opportunities. Profilakticheskaja medicina [Preventive medicine]. 2022; 25 (2): 86–90. URL: (in Russian)

2.Official website of the Mayor of Moscow. URL: (date of access 02.02.2023)

3.ABIM Foundation; ACP-ASIM Foundation; European Federation of Internal Medicine. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 5; 136 (3): 243–6. DOI: PMID: 11827500.

4.Loginov S.A. The specifics of the modern understanding of the concept of «professionalism» in medicine. 2016; 2 (13): 114–6. European Researcher. Series A – International Journal of Social Science. (in Russian)

5.Tay K.T., Ng S., Hee J.M., Chia E.W.Y., Vythilingam D., Ong Y.T., et al. Assessing professionalism in medicine – a scoping review of assessment tools from 1990 to 2018. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020; 7 (1): 2382120520955159.

6.Pyanzina A.V., Wagner V.D. Satisfaction and quality of life of patients in the process of dental orthopedic treatment: literature review. Institut stomatologii [Institute of Dentistry]. 2022; 1 (94): 93–5. (in Russian)

7.Rozov R.A., Trezubov V.N., Urakov A.L., Azarin G.S., Reshetnikov A.P., Kopylov M.V. Criterion system for assessing the real competencies of dentists engaged in dental implantology. The results of the analysis of 43 portfolios of young dentists. Stomatologija [Dentistry]. 2019; 98 (3): 4–11. DOI: (in Russian)

8.Hodges B., Paul R., Ginsburg S. The Ottawa Consensus Group Members. Assessment of professionalism: From where have we come – to where are we going? An update from the Ottawa Consensus Group on the assessment of professionalism. Med Teach. 2019; 41 (3): 249–255. DOI: Epub 2019 Jan 29. PMID: 30696355.

9.Chisholm A., Askham J. What do you think of your doctor? A review of questionnaires for gathering patients’ feedback on their doctor. Picker Institute Europe. 2006

10. Pirjani R., Rabiei M., Alipour S., Hosseini R., Shahvari Z. Promoting professionalism in practice: using patients’ lived experiences. Med Educ. 2019; 53 (5): 505. DOI: 13863. Epub 2019 Mar 19. PMID: 30891829.

11. Wilkinson T.J., Wade W.B., Knock L.D. A blueprint to assess professionalism: results of a systematic review. Acad Med. 2009; 84 (5): 551–8. DOI: PMID: 19704185.

12. Ratelle J.T., Halvorsen A.J., Mandrekar J., Sawatsky A.P., Reed D.A., Beckman T.J. Internal medicine resident professionalism assessments: exploring the association with patients’ overall satisfaction with their hospital stay. Acad Med. 2020; 95 (6): 902–10. DOI: PMID: 31809293.

13. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Guillemin F., Ferraz M.B. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25 (24): 3186–91. DOI: PMID: 11124735.

14. Gaidyshev I. Data analysis and processing. A special reference book. St. Petersburg: «Peter», 2001. 750 p. (in Russian)

15. Ward K., Stanyon M., Ryan K., Dave S. Power, recovery and doing something worthwhile: A thematic analysis of expert patient perspectives in psychiatry education. Health Expect. 2022; 25 (2): 549–57. DOI: Epub 2022 Jan 25. PMID: 35076965; PMCID: PMC 8957736.

16. Booker Q.S., Austin J.D., Balasubramanian B.A. Survey strategies to increase participant response rates in primary care research studies. Fam Pract. 2021; 38 (5): 699–702.

17. Phillips A.W., Reddy S., Durning S.J. Improving response rates and evaluating nonresponse bias in surveys: AMEE Guide No. 102. Med Teach. 2016; 38 (3): 217–28. DOI: Epub 2015 Dec 9. PMID: 26648511.

18. Professional standards. Healthcare. URL:

19. FGOS VO (3++) in the areas of specialty c linical medicine. URL: (date of access 01.02.2023)

20. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E. Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA; 2019.

21. O’Sullivan H., van Mook W., Fewtrell R., Wass V. Integrating professionalism into the curriculum: AMEE Guide No. 61. Med Teach. 2012; 34 (2): e64–77. DOI: 1 PMID: 22289014.

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)

Balkizov Zalim Zamirovich
Secretary General of the Russian Society of Medical Education Specialists, Director of the Institute of Training of Medical Education Specialists of the Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education, 125993, Moscow, Russian Federation, Professor of the Department of Vocational Education and Educational Technologies of the N.I. Pirogov RNIMU of the MOH of Russia, CEO of GEOTAR-Med, Advisor President of the National Medical Chamber, Moscow, Russian Federation

Journals of «GEOTAR-Media»