Cargando…

International patient preferences for physician attire: results from cross-sectional studies in four countries across three continents

OBJECTIVE: The patient–physician relationship impacts patients’ experiences and health outcomes. Physician attire is a form of nonverbal communication that influences this relationship. Prior studies examining attire preferences suffered from heterogeneous measurement and limited context. We thus pe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Houchens, Nathan, Saint, Sanjay, Petrilli, Christopher, Kuhn, Latoya, Ratz, David, De Lott, Lindsey, Zollinger, Marc, Sax, Hugo, Kamata, Kazuhiro, Kuriyama, Akira, Tokuda, Yasuharu, Fumagalli, Carlo, Virgili, Gianni, Fumagalli, Stefano, Chopra, Vineet
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9535197/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36192090
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061092
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: The patient–physician relationship impacts patients’ experiences and health outcomes. Physician attire is a form of nonverbal communication that influences this relationship. Prior studies examining attire preferences suffered from heterogeneous measurement and limited context. We thus performed a multicentre, cross-sectional study using a standardised survey instrument to compare patient preferences for physician dress in international settings. SETTING: 20 hospitals and healthcare practices in Italy, Japan, Switzerland and the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 9171 adult patients receiving care in academic hospitals, general medicine clinics, specialty clinics and ophthalmology practices. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey was randomised and included photographs of a male or female physician dressed in assorted forms of attire. The primary outcome measure was attire preference, comprised of composite ratings across five domains: how knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring and approachable the physician appeared, and how comfortable the respondent felt. Secondary outcome measures included variation in preferences by country, physician type and respondent characteristics. RESULTS: The highest rated forms of attire differed by country, although each most preferred attire with white coat. Low ratings were conferred on attire extremes (casual and business suit). Preferences were more uniform for certain physician types. For example, among all respondents, scrubs garnered the highest rating for emergency department physicians (44.2%) and surgeons (42.4%). However, attire preferences diverged for primary care and hospital physicians. All types of formal attire were more strongly preferred in the USA than elsewhere. Respondent age influenced preferences in Japan and the USA only. CONCLUSIONS: Patients across a myriad of geographies, settings and demographics harbour specific preferences for physician attire. Some preferences are nearly universal, whereas others vary substantially. As a one-size-fits-all dress policy is unlikely to reflect patient desires and expectations, a tailored approach should be sought that attempts to match attire to clinical context.