ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2024
Not "that kind" of doctor: an exploratory study on Doctor of Physical Therapy-patient introductions in the United States.
Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis exploratory study examined the prevalence and determinants of the use of the title 'doctor' among the United States (U.S.) licensed Doctors of Physical Therapy (DPTs) during patient-provider introductions.
methodsA cross-sectional analysis of DPTs across eight states was conducted. Binary logistic regression analyzed demographic and experience-related factors influencing title use, including years of experience, board certification status, and clinical instructor (CI) experience. Stepwise logistic regression with forward selection identified significant predictors. Beliefs influencing title use were evaluated through descriptive statistics from multiple choice questions with an option for open-ended responses for additional opinions.
resultsOf the 1,311 participants who met the inclusion criteria, 19.9% reported using 'doctor' during patient-provider introductions. The odds of using the title increased with age and was higher among males, with age controlled for. Completion of a residency program and not being a CI were also associated with greater odds of title use, with age and sex controlled for. Beliefs about demonstrating expertise, having earned the title, and advancing the profession were primary reasons for using the title, while concerns about patient confusion and therapeutic alliance were reasons for not using it. Both DPTs who did and did not report using the title 'doctor' commonly cited the impact on therapeutic alliance as justification.
conclusionsA minority of our sample of U.S. DPTs use the title 'doctor' during patient-provider introductions, with significant variation across age, gender, and professional experience. Deciding whether to use the title was primarily based on their perceived effects on patient beliefs. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to formally investigate how DPTs refer to themselves during patient-provider introductions. Understanding title use in healthcare can inform best practices during patient interactions. This study provides a foundation for future research on the impact of DPTs mentioning their doctoral title on patient experiences and outcomes.
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.