The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature— targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: Despite a growing body of literature, uncertainty regarding the influence of physician dress on patients’ perceptions exists. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to examine the influence of physician attire on patient perceptions including trust, satisfaction and confidence. Setting, participants, interventions and outcomes: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Biosis Previews and Conference Papers Index. Studies that: (1) involved participants ≥18 years of age; (2) evaluated physician attire; and (3) reported patient perceptions related to attire were included. Two authors determined study eligibility. Studies were categorised by country of origin, clinical discipline (eg, internal medicine, surgery), context (inpatient vs outpatient) and occurrence of a clinical encounter when soliciting opinions regarding attire. Studies were assessed using the Downs and Black Scale risk of bias scale. Owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, meta-analyses were not attempted. Results: Of 1040 citations, 30 studies involving 11 533 patients met eligibility criteria. Included studies featured patients from 14 countries. General medicine, procedural (eg, general surgery and obstetrics), clinic, emergency departments and hospital settings were represented. Preferences or positive influence of physician attire on patient perceptions were reported in 21 of the 30 studies (70%). Formal attire and white coats with other attire not specified was preferred in 18 of 30 studies (60%). Preference for formal attire and white coats was more prevalent among older patients and studies conducted in Europe and Asia. Four of seven studies involving procedural specialties reported either no preference for attire or a preference for scrubs; four of five studies in intensive care and emergency settings also found no attire preference. Only 3 of 12 studies that surveyed patients after a clinical encounter concluded that attire influenced patient perceptions. Conclusions: Although patients often prefer formal physician attire, perceptions of attire are influenced by age, locale, setting and context of care. Policy-based interventions that target such factors appear necessary.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
Cited by
Enhance placebo, avoid nocebo: How contextual factors affect physiotherapy outcomes
Testa, M., & Rossettini, G. (2016) · Manual Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.math.2016.04.006 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Petrilli, C. M., Mack, M., Petrilli, J. J., Hickner, A., Saint, S., & Chopra, V.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2015-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e006578
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2132167210
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature— targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006578
- The paper
- Petrilli, C. M., Mack, M., Petrilli, J. J., Hickner, A., Saint, S., & Chopra, V. (2015). Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature— targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006578
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.