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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".