Original Article

Patients’ Attitudes Regarding Physical Characteristics of Family Practice Physicians

Authors: Amy J. Keenum, DO, PHARMD, Lorraine Silver Wallace, PHD, Amy R. Barger Stevens, MD

Abstract

BackgroundThis study examined patient perceptions and attitudes toward various aspects of the male and female physician’s professional appearance in the family practice setting.MethodsFour hundred ninety-six patients from two family practice clinics in Knoxville, Tennessee, completed a valid and reliable questionnaire. Questionnaires were offered to all patients on registering at their respective clinic during a 2-week period.ResultsMost patients had no preference regarding the age or sex of their medical care provider. A nametag, white coat, and visible stethoscope were the most desirable characteristics, whereas sandals, clogs, and tennis shoes were the least desirable items. Younger patients were generally more accepting of casual attire than were older patients. Office clinic location was the most important predictor of preferences in six of the significant characteristics.ConclusionOur findings support the results of both studies published two decades earlier and more recently. Patients prefer a traditionally dressed physician as opposed to one who is dressed more casually.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first.

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view your purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($15)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Taylor PG. Does the way housestaff physicians dress influence the way parents initially perceive their competence? Pedriatr Notes 1985; 9: 1.
 
2. Dunn JJ, Lee TH, Percelay JM, et al. Patient and house officer attitudes on physician attire and etiquette. JAMA 1987; 257: 65–68.
 
3. McKinstry B, Wang JX. Putting on the style: What patients think of the way their doctor dresses. Br J Gen Pract 1991; 41: 270, 275–278.
 
4. Gjerdingen DK, Simpson DE, Titus SL. Patients’ and physicians’ attitudes regarding the physician’s professional appearance. Arch Intern Med 1987; 147: 1209–1212.
 
5. Kanzler MH, Gorsulowsky DC. Patients’ attitudes regarding physical characteristics of medical care providers in dermatologic practices. Arch Dermatol 2002; 138: 463–466.
 
6. Gooden BR, Smith MJ, Tattersall SJ, et al. Hospitalised patients’ views on doctors and white coats. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 219–222.
 
7. Menahem S, Shvartzman P. Is our appearance important to our patients? Fam Pract 1998; 15: 391–397.
 
8. Anvik T. Doctors in a white coat: What do patients think and what do doctors do? Scand J Prim Health Care 1990; 8: 91–94.
 
9. Browner WS, Newman TB, Cummings SR, et al. Estimating sample size and power: The nitty-gritty, in Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al (eds): Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiologic Approach. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001, ed 2, pp 65–91.
 
10. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Atlanta, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/. Accessed May 5, 2003.
 
11. McKinstry B, Yang SY. Do patients care about the age of their general practitioner? A questionnaire survey in five practices. Br J Gen Pract 1994; 44: 349–351.
 
12. Matsui D, Cho M, Rieder MJ. Physicians’ attire as perceived by young children and their parents: The myth of the white coat syndrome. Pediatr Emerg Care 1998; 14: 198–201.
 
13. Fennema K, Meyer DL, Owen N. Sex of physician: Patients’ preferences and stereotypes. J Fam Pract 1990; 30: 441–446.