You Can’t Touch…or Can You? Dietitians’ Perceptions of Expressive Touch in Client Encounters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We explored Registered Dietitians’ (RDs’) perceptions about expressive touch (ET) as a means to provide client-centred care, a practice unreported to date. For this study, ET is defined as relatively spontaneous, responsive, and affective contact by dietitians. Methods: This exploratory study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach. RDs in Northern Ontario were surveyed (54% response, n = 135) and these results were further explored in interviews with a subset of participants (n = 17). Analysis included descriptive and association statistics and qualitative description. Results: Most RDs considered ET a useful tool for effective client communication (66%–77%), yet they were hesitant to enact the practice (81%). Analysis of interviews revealed ET to be “situationally beneficial” with uptake influenced by an interplay of factors, described as: perceived client openness to touch, the environment, and RD comfort with touch. Greater uptake was reported among RDs working with distressed clients and clients in ambulatory clinics and long-term care. ET practice was limited by personal safety concerns, unknown client customs, and client misinterpretation. Conclusion: ET was valued by many RDs as an enhancement to client-centred care. Selective use of ET is influenced by the context of dietetic practice and by perceived client and RD comfort with the use of ET.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".