Patients' attitudes to comforting touch in family practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine patients' attitudes to comforting touch in family practice. DESIGN: A survey was designed with statements and responses to proposed scenarios. SETTING: Twenty family practices throughout Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Family practice patients; of 400 surveys distributed, 376 were completed (94% response rate). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients responded to scenarios on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Results were analyzed using SPSS for DOS. RESULTS: Most patients in this population believed that touch can be comforting (66.3%) and healing (57.9%). Women were more accepting of comforting touch than men in all scenarios. Acceptance of comforting touch declined for both sexes as touch became proximal and more intimate. Men and women were more accepting of comforting touch from female doctors. Acceptance of all comforting touch declined markedly if a physician was unfamiliar to a patient, regardless of the physician's sex. CONCLUSION: Most patients surveyed believed touch is comforting and healing and viewed distal touches (on the hand and shoulder) as comforting.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".