Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Author's response

Mark Jenkins
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (539): 500-501.
Mark Jenkins
Medical Statistics Group, ScHARR, Regent's Court, Sheffield. E-mail:
Roles: Professor, Director of Health Services Research, Editor Statistics in Medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: r.m.jenkins@lineone.net
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

I feel the letter ‘Handshakes and spoof publications’1 does warrant a published reply.

I am pleased that my pilot study has stirred such interest and find it fascinating this includes such an extreme response. Taking each of the three points raised. Firstly, the study suggests that 1.2% of patients were very happy with their consultation and demonstrated their feelings in this way. Dr Parkes makes the classic error of judgement by comparison when no measurements or standards exist yet. The consensus from my colleagues in general practice is that they receive about one patient-initiated handshake towards the end of the consultation per week. Interestingly, and I know that this is a sensitive and emotive issue, but on enquiring into female GPs' experiences, a patient-hug (from female patients) seems to occur.

Secondly, I was informed the pilot study was not suitable for the original papers section as there was only one subject, that was myself.

Thirdly, we are in total agreement. The phenomenon needs more research in a wider context as outlined by Dr Parkes's broader questions. Of course, however, we may never know unless someone is brave enough to perform the research despite such responses!

Touch in medicine, does seem an emotive and currently a politically incorrect subject as raised and published in this journal by Dr Dougal Jeffries.2

I wonder if some doctors might even feel threatened by issues of touch between patient and doctor?

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2007.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Parkes G
    (2007) Handshakes and spoof publications. Br J Gen Pract 57:411.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Jeffries D
    (2007) In praise of touch. Br J Gen Pract 57:80.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 57 (539)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 57, Issue 539
June 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Author's response
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Author's response
Mark Jenkins
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (539): 500-501.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Author's response
Mark Jenkins
British Journal of General Practice 2007; 57 (539): 500-501.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
  • MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment — the hidden fourth construct
  • Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening — CAP intervention
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242