Perceptions of Outpatients Regarding the Attire of Physiotherapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated perceptions of patients regarding physiotherapists' attire. METHODS: Three hundred patients in three publicly funded outpatient physiotherapy clinics were asked to complete a questionnaire, ranking four photographed modes of attire (lab coat, tailored dress, "scrubs," and jeans) in terms of professionalism, preference, and appropriateness and rating their level of agreement with four statements about physiotherapists' attire. RESULTS: Response rate was 63.7 %. The lab coat was ranked most professional, tailored dress most preferred, and jeans least professional and least preferred. Although jeans were deemed inappropriate (p < 0.001), strong support was shown for wearing jeans on "casual day" (p = 0.001). Age of respondents influenced the perception of the appropriateness of wearing jeans (p = 0.007 for male therapist; p = 0.017 for female therapist); only the cohort <36 years considered jeans appropriate apparel. Overall exposure to physiotherapists (number of lifetime visits) affected patients' perceptions of the importance of attire (p = 0.039) and the appropriateness of wearing jeans (p = 0.018): as number of visits increased, perceived importance decreased and perceived propriety of jeans increased. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study, the first to examine patients' opinions of physiotherapists' attire, suggest that outpatients made clear distinctions between what they perceived as professional and what they preferred, as well as between the appropriateness of physiotherapists' wearing jeans in general and the appropriateness of their doing so on "casual day." Age and exposure to physiotherapists influenced patients' perceptions of attire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".