Understanding patient preferences for student clinician attire: a cross-sectional study of a student chiropractic clinic in Australia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Previous studies have investigated the role of clinical attire in establishing patient-held perceptions of professionalism and knowledgeability across various healthcare settings. This study aimed to understand patients' preferences for chiropractic student attire. Methods: Three hundred and twenty patients were recruited from a university chiropractic clinic and asked to complete an online questionnaire. The patients' preferences for five different attires were rated and calculated as the composite score of five domains (knowledgeable, trustworthy, caring, professional, and comfortable). Results: While 71.9% of participants indicated that how students dress was important to them, most (63.4%) disagreed that wearing a white coat was essential for chiropractic student clinicians. The most preferred form of attire was the current clinic shirt. Conclusion: The attire worn by chiropractic student clinicians at a single institution was found to be an influential attribute. Student chiropractic clinicians should dress professionally to make a good first impression. This study provided some guidance with the ongoing debate around students' dress code.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".