Embodying empathy: A phenomenological study of physician touch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Empathic physician behaviour is associated with improved patient outcomes. One way to demonstrate empathy is through the use of non-verbal communication (NVC) including touch. To date, research on NVC, and specifically touch, has been relatively limited in medicine, which is surprising given the central role it plays in conveying affective and empathic messages. To inform curriculum development on NVC, this study aimed to examine physicians' experiences of communicating by touch. METHODS: We conducted an interpretative phenomenological study. A total of 15 physicians (seven women and eight men) from different specialties, including both recent graduates and experienced doctors, described in detail specific instances of touch drawn from their clinical practices. Interview prompts encouraged participants to recall exact details such as the context, their relationship with the patient they touched and their physical experience of touching. Interviews (45-100 minutes) were analysed with template analysis, followed by a process of dialectic questioning, moving back and forth between the data and researchers' personal reflections on them, drawing on phenomenological literature to synthesise a final interpretation. RESULTS: Participants described two dimensions of the experience of touch: 'choosing and inviting touch' and 'expressing empathy.' Touch was a personal and fragile process. Participants interpreted non-verbal patient cues in order to determine whether or not touch was appropriate. They interpreted facial expressions and body language in the present to make meaning of patients' experiences. They used touch to share emotions, and to demonstrate empathy and presence. Participants' experiences of touch framed it as a form of embodied empathic communication. CONCLUSIONS: Touch is a powerful form of NVC that can establish human connection. Phenomenological accounts of empathy, which emphasise its embodied intersubjective nature, can be used to theoretically enrich pedagogical approaches to touch in medical education and to deepen our understanding of empathy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".