Draping in Dermatology: A Patient’s Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives Patient dignity is a core component of the Canadian health care system; however, there may be challenges to maintaining patient dignity in clinical settings requiring total body skin examination (TBSE) for adequate assessment and diagnosis. As standardized TBSE draping practices have not been investigated in a dermatology setting, we sought out to investigate subjective patient experiences of draping practices. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed using a paper survey in dermatology hospital clinics over a 6-month period to 150 patients. Results Draping was considered important by over 50% of patients surveyed (54.7%). Respondents who indicated that draping impacted their comfort level “a lot” or “very much” had a mean age of 52 and were more likely to be females ( P < .05). Females were also more likely to answer that their body weight/shape ( P < .05), physician of same ( P < .01) or opposite sex ( P < .001), and the degree of privacy offered by drapes ( P < .001) impacted their comfort level when undressing for a TBSE. Respondents who reported that any assessed factor impacted their comfort during a TBSE were also younger ( P < .05), suggesting that younger and female patients were more likely to have comfort concerns than males. Conclusions Our study confirmed that most patients surveyed considered draping to be important. Our findings highlight the importance of adequate draping practices to maintain patient privacy and dignity for all patients, with special attention to younger female patients to ensure they feel as comfortable as possible. Future research should focus on how these identified patient comfort factors can be implemented into medical education.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".