Patients’ Perspectives on Bedside Manners in Physical Therapy in Saudi Arabia: A Mixed-Methods Study

Background/Objectives: Bedside manners are central to patient-centered rehabilitation, yet patient perspectives on physical therapy in Saudi Arabia remain underexplored. This study examined patients’ perceptions of physical therapists’ bedside manners and explored variation according to patient and therapist characteristics. Methods: A cross-sectional convergent mixed-methods study included 510 patients who had completed physical therapy within the previous year. Participants completed a 25-item questionnaire comprising six sociodemographic and 19 bedside-manner items; 25 participants also completed semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and selected Likert-scale items with sufficient response variability were examined using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests with Bonferroni correction and Cramér’s V. Interview data underwent thematic analysis. Results: Responses to the nine yes/no items were predominantly affirmative (88.6–98.6%). The first item assessed familiarity with the term “bedside manners,” whereas the remaining eight items assessed patients’ reported experiences of therapist behaviors. Agreement exceeded 90% for six of the ten Likert-scale items, while responses regarding empathy, therapist presence, and attention according to case complexity were more variable. After correction for multiple comparisons, preferences regarding therapist presence differed by therapist sex and patient–therapist sex match (both p < 0.001; Cramér’s V = 0.17). The qualitative analysis identified seven themes: therapeutic relationship, treatment adherence, nonverbal communication, emotional support, therapist supervision, initial impression, and professional consultation. Conclusions: Patients in this sample strongly valued communication, consent, privacy, reassurance, and respectful interpersonal behavior, while preferences regarding empathy and therapist supervision were more individualized. Interpretation is limited by the cross-sectional convenience sample, restriction to treatment completers, and the small magnitude of the observed associations.