Passé or a time to pause? A phenomenological study of family physicians’ experiences of physical examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Once the cornerstone of clinical family practice, the role of physical examination is changing. Patients and physicians alike express concern that emphasis on evidence-based medicine and increasing reliance of technology has relegated the role of physical examination in clinical practice. Aim To understand the role of physical examination in contemporary family practice. Method Qualitative phenomenological study, interpreted through the writings of Merleau-Ponty. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of sixteen family physicians; men, women, recent graduates and experienced physician working in urban, rural and academic practices. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and examined using template analysis, complimented with researcher reflexivity. Results Study participants described physical examination as core to practice, to diagnose, to communicate, and to validate patient and practitioner concerns. Performance of physical examination became routine over time but a disruption to the expected caused physicians to pause. Participants described this as a slowing of time where they became conscious of the body of the patient and their own body, intertwined in a moment. Physicians experienced affective, intellectual, and physical phenomena, which integrated to guide their behaviour, diagnosis, and management of the patient. The role of physical examination was to not only diagnosis as an evidence-based medical expert, but was experienced as a form of embodied, nonverbal communication, which expressed care. Conclusion Physical examination plays an important role to reassure and communicate trust in the doctor–patient relationship, enacted through the body of the physician. Complimenting diagnosis, the laying on of hands remains an essential element of patient care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".