Keywords: physical examination, emotions, interpersonal relations,

Background:

Social movements such as #MeToo and stricter consent norms are reshaping how bodies and intimacy are perceived. In primary care, medical touch remains essential for diagnosis yet also carries relational meaning. The everyday experiences of general practitioners—feelings, uncertainties and coping strategies—remain poorly documented.

Research questions:

How do general practitioners perceive, experience and adapt the practice of medical touch within today’s evolving expectations of intimacy, consent and ethical care in the doctor‑patient relationship?

Method:

Qualitative study inspired by Grounded Theory. Twelve GPs (6 women, 6 men; aged 30–65) were purposively sampled for diversity in age, gender, seniority and practice type. Semi‑structured interviews (45–70 min. feb–Sep 2025) were audio‑recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Coding proceeded through open, axial and selective phases with constant comparative analysis; two analysts coded independently, resolving differences by discussion and triangulating two‑thirds of the data.

Results:

Medical touch emerged as a practice that is both technical and relational. Participants stressed that the gesture must be explicitly explained, continuously adapted to the patient’s signals, and performed securely. Its effectiveness depends on the integration of three pillars—clinical competence, empathetic presence, and ethical vigilance—within a sociocultural context that now demands greater transparency and informed consent. Consequently, touch is experienced as a conscious professional act situated at the intersection of skill, respect, and therapeutic bond. The influence of experience, training and continuity of care highlights the role of time and transmission in learning touch. Experience, training, and the continuity of care underscore how time and mentorship shape physicians’ mastery of touch. Conversely, contexts in which physical contact is absent—particularly teleconsultations—warrant further investigation to determine how the loss of bodily interaction reshapes the therapeutic relationship.

Conclusions:

GPs regard medical touch as a skilled, empathetic, ethically grounded act; these findings provide a solid basis for training and policy to ensure safe, patient‑centered care.

Points for discussion:

How can GPs turn these insights into concrete communication protocols that protect consent and strengthen the therapeutic alliance?

What are the main obstacles primary‑care teams face in implementing consent‑focused, empathetic touch?