Article Text

PDF
An observational study of patients’ attitudes to tattoos and piercings on their physicians: the ART study
  1. Marissa Cohen,
  2. Donald Jeanmonod,
  3. Holly Stankewicz,
  4. Keith Habeeb,
  5. Matthew Berrios,
  6. Rebecca Jeanmonod
  1. St Luke’s University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rebecca Jeanmonod, St Luke’s University Health Network, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA; rebeccajeanmonod{at}yahoo.com

Abstract

Introduction Perceptions regarding body art change over time as societal norms change. Previous research regarding patients' perceptions of physicians with exposed body art have been hampered by flaws in design methodology that incorporate biases into patient responses. This study was performed to determine whether emergency department (ED) patients perceived a difference in physician competence, professionalism, caring, approachability, trustworthiness and reliability in the setting of exposed body art.

Methods Standardised surveys about physician competence, professionalism, caring, approachability, trustworthiness and reliability rating providers on a five point Likert scale were administered to patients in an ED after an encounter with a physician provider who demonstrated no body art modification, non-traditional piercings, tattoos, or both piercings and tattoos. Each provider served as their own control. Patients were blinded to the purpose of the survey.

Results Patients did not perceive a difference in physician competence, professionalism, caring, approachability, trustworthiness or reliability in the setting of exposed body art. Patients assigned top box performance in all domains >75% of the time, regardless of physician appearance.

Conclusion In the clinical setting, having exposed body art does not significantly change patients' perception of the physician.

  • dress code
  • patient satisfaction
  • body art

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors Study conception: RJ, DJ and KH. Study design: RJ, DJ, HS and MC. Data collection and handling: MC, RJ, DJ, HS, MB and KH: Data analysis: RJ. Data interpretation: RJ, DJ and MC. Drafting of manuscript: MC, RJ, DJ and HS. Editing and revision of manuscript: MC, RJ, DJ, HS, MB and KH. Responsible for manuscript as a whole: MC, RJ and DJ.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval The study was approved by the institutional review board of St Luke’s University Health Network.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Presented at Presentations: American College of Emergency Physicians Research Forum, Boston, MA 2015; St Luke’s Research Forum, Bethlehem, PA 2016; Pennsylvania ACEP Research Forum, Philadelphia, PA 2016.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Primary survey
    Ellen J Weber