ArticleBMJ open2023
Patients' experiences of being touched by their general practitioner: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- My bad tooth and why it matters: the neglected value of "Medical Touch".International journal of medical education · 2026Article
- Prostate Cancer Patients' Perceptions Regarding the Relevance of a Digital Rectal Examination During Their Follow-Up After Radiation Therapy.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to explore patients' experiences and perceptions of touch, as practised by their general practitioner during their medical appointment.
designQualitative study using grounded theory method, based on individual interviews. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively; themes were identified using constant comparison.
settingRecruitment among general practitioners' private practices and health centres in Ile-de-France.
participantsTwenty-one patients aged 19-88 years old, interviewed between June 2018 and May 2019.
resultsPhysical examination was described as a ritual enabling the establishment of patients' and doctors' roles, the verification of the doctor's skills and the construction of a caring experience. Touch was also a media for the doctor to exercise power that the patient authorised. Finally, it had relational and emotional value. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionPhysical examination is so internalised by the patients that it becomes unquestionable. It may be inappropriate when this touch does not belong to physical examination or on the contrary represents a proof of the doctor's humanity. The patient is not necessarily aware of the relational dimension that underpins touching and, in particular, clinical examination. This raises the question of why should doctor use it and how they can communicate about it, so that it may become an active tool in favour of trust and the construction of the relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.