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
  • 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
Out of Hours

Shoot the academics? Running the gauntlet of online responders

Simon Cocksedge and Carolyn Chew-Graham
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (653): 615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X688141
Simon Cocksedge
Honorary Senior Lecturer in Primary Care and Communication, University of Manchester, Manchester.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carolyn Chew-Graham
Professor of General Practice Research, Keele University, Keele.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

STINGING RESPONSES

It was only brief but it hurt. The hurt remains. Our encounter with readers on the internet, albeit in the perhaps rarefied world of online medical publishing — in this case, the Pulse online article comments section — still leaves us surprised and shocked.

The background was the publication of a qualitative investigation into doctors’ and patients’ perspectives about the use of touch in GP consultations.1 A summary was published in a weekly medical magazine for GPs in which readers were invited to respond by posting their online comments, which could be anonymous.2

And respond they did, without mincing their words! The first correspondent was of the opinion that: ‘These academic types should be lined up and shot.’‘To class this as academic is truly flattering’, suggested another.

For a second group, the thought of using touch as a communication tool in consultations was clearly too much: ‘Yuk, hands off’ and ‘Ugh, the touchy-feely approach is not for everyone. I’m British and proud of it. Please don’t pat me on the arm. What about stroking and squeezing?’

There were also comments questioning our methods that displayed ignorance of this qualitative research methodology: ‘… insufficient powering, selection bias, complete lack of meaningful end points …’

and: ‘The numbers leave something to be desired in a “validated” trial.’

Lastly, there were three serious and supportive responses outlining the purpose of qualitative research and suggesting that the previous responders (as quoted above): ‘… brush up on their research methodology.’

DESCENDING FROM IVORY TOWERS

So why do we remain surprised and shocked by the suggestion that we should be ‘lined up and shot’? ‘Lighten up,’ we hear you say, ‘descend from your ivory tower and enjoy the joke.’ Of course, perhaps these responses should be taken at that level.

Nevertheless, given that these comments were, we assume, posted by GP colleagues or GPs in training, questions arise, and hence this brief reflection.

If our online responders were medically qualified, it is disappointing that their training has not equipped them to understand the basics of research methodology and to consider reading the original paper before reaching for their metaphorical pens (or guns even) to offer opinion and comment.

Touch is (or should be) a central part of doctor–patient communication,3 and the literature on this topic is very limited, hence the need for our study. So a preliminary exploration with interesting findings and implications (Box 1) at least offers somewhere to start, and has already impacted on the medical student curriculum of the university in which this study was carried out.

Box 1.

Key points from our qualitative study of touch in primary care1

  • Some doctors never touch their patients apart from when undertaking a physical examination.

  • Patients welcome being touched by their GP on their forearm or hand in appropriate situations.

  • Doctors do not reflect often on this aspect of their work.

  • Patients reported that expressive touch enhanced a feeling of being understood and suggested a ‘genuineness’ in the doctor’s contribution to the interaction.

Provoking such strong responses as those quoted here suggests that the subject of the use of touch in GP consultations is worthy of further discussion.

THE VALUE OF RESEARCH FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

The comments directed at us also reveal a lack of awareness by professional colleagues concerning the role and work of academic clinicians. Most GP clinical academics of our acquaintance work at least two or three surgery sessions a week alongside their teaching and research commitments. We have stopped to reflect that we could better communicate how research (often rooted in the everyday clinical practice of academics) contributes to the development of evidence-based guidelines. In turn, these are used regularly by the very colleagues criticising us, as well as impacting on the training of future doctors.

Perhaps we should all be more savvy in our use of online medical publishing to get our results (and explanations of the methods we use to obtain our data) ‘out there.’

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2016

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Cocksedge S,
    2. George B,
    3. Renwick S,
    4. Chew-Graham CA
    (2013) Touch in primary care consultations: qualitative investigation of doctors’ and patients’ perceptions. Br J Gen Pract doi:10.3399/bjgp13X665251.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Swan D
    (Mar 28, 2013) Pulse, GPs urged to touch patients during consultations. http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/paper-of-the-day/gps-urged-to-touch-patients-during-consultations/20002443.article (accessed 7 Nov 2016).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Silverman J,
    2. Kurtz S,
    3. Draper J
    (2013) Skills for communicating with patients (CRC Press, Abingdon), 3rd edn.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 66 (653)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 66, Issue 653
December 2016
  • 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.
Shoot the academics? Running the gauntlet of online responders
(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
Shoot the academics? Running the gauntlet of online responders
Simon Cocksedge, Carolyn Chew-Graham
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (653): 615. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X688141

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Shoot the academics? Running the gauntlet of online responders
Simon Cocksedge, Carolyn Chew-Graham
British Journal of General Practice 2016; 66 (653): 615. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X688141
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
    • STINGING RESPONSES
    • DESCENDING FROM IVORY TOWERS
    • THE VALUE OF RESEARCH FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Fakery and science
  • Viewpoint: Redundant subjectivity?
  • Books: A Layman’s Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis
Show more Out of Hours

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