Evidence-Based Perspective on Greetings in

¶ … Evidence-Based Perspective on Greetings in Medical Encounters," Makoul, Zick, & Green (2007) conducted a national survey to determine patient perspectives of intake greetings by doctors. Makoul et al. (2007) used a combination of methods including nationwide telephone surveys of over 1000 respondents also analyzed more than 600 videotaped encounters between patients and doctors during the greetings. Most (78%) of the participants preferred a hand shake during greeting, and about half also preferred doctors refer to the patient by their first name.

A little over half (56%) of participants preferred that doctors introduce themselves by both first and last name. Videotaped sessions showed that more than 80% of doctors do shake hands when first greeting patients, and about half use the patients' first names. Results also reveal that doctors do tend to introduce themselves using both first and last names. However, the authors argue that cultural, age, and gender differences might yield differential opinions about appropriate greeting behaviors and doctors should be sensitive to their patients' needs.

The authors also suggest that doctors use their first and last names when introducing themselves, referring to their patients also using both first and last names. Shaking hands should be done with discretion. 1. The researchers were filling a gap in the medical literature about patient preferences for doctors' greetings. Based on the assumption that appropriate greetings enhance the patient's experience, Makoul, et al.

(2007) conducted a large-scale nationwide telephone survey asking closed-ended questions to find whether or not patients preferred hand shakes, the use of their first and last names, and whether or not patients liked doctors to introduce themselves using both first and last names. The authors also sought evidence for how doctors most often do greet their patients in a formal clinical setting. Results indicate that a large majority (about 80%) of patients do tend to prefer handshakes, and that roughly 80% of the time doctors do in fact introduce themselves with that gesture.

Makoul et al. (2007) also found that about half the respondents preferred that doctors introduce themselves using both their first and last names, and that roughly that amount of doctors did that. Similarly, about half of the respondents liked it when doctors used their own first and last names and about half the time doctors did so, based on videotaped evidence. Implications include teaching medical students and experienced doctors about how to create an optimal healing environment when dealing with each and every patient.

Greetings should not be neglected when crafting an overall treatment plan, which begins from the first intake interview. 2. The Introduction section provides justification for the current study, claiming its relevance for the clinical community. Authors also point out that the current research is new and that little prior research on the subject has been performed. Makoul et al. (2007) also briefly summarize the methods used for the research. 3.

The first subheading of the Methods section is "National Survey." This subsection explains that the researchers culled their information from a larger study about professionalism in medicine. This and the overall research on professionalism was conducted by Northwestern University and offered to almost 1500 respondents in the 48 contiguous states. The next subsection of Methods is "Video Sample," which refers to the videotaped samples used to gather data in this study. Finally, "Statistical Analysis" details the type of analysis used to analyze data.

Table One of the Results section is entitled "Characteristics of the Survey and Video Samples," and outlines some of the demographic data gleaned. Subheadings in the Results section include "Shaking Hands," a section that is accompanied by Table 2: "Greeting Behavior: Survey Responses and Video Observations." Subsequent subheadings include "Patient Names," "Physician Names," and "Other Considerations." Each of these subheadings essentially guides the reader's eye quickly to the specific results of the study and are enormously helpful when reviewing the article. 4.

The Discussion (Comment) section restates some background information about the study and outlines the motives, methods, and results. Then the authors analyze the results to draw relevant conclusions. Their observations are compared with current practices and so the authors also offer suggestions on how to improve medical education and training of new physicians. 5. Both the Introduction and Discussion sections are relatively free of jargon because the subject matter is not technical: greetings.