{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03380588876772083, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011995637949836423, 'mean_word_length': 4.1, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An analysis of lay medicine.

Method and patients A survey was carried out on 1,000 patients attending a general practitioner's surgery in Northampton. Each fifth patient was selected or, if he did not present a new symptom, the next in order was chosen. When an adult attended with a child it was the adult who was counted as the patient. The patient was first asked if he had received any previous advice or treatment for the particular symptom. He was then asked from a questionnaire the source, type and soundness of advice and whether or not he accepted it. Social factors such as age, domicile and social class were recorded and the type of illness was noted. In practice most factors fitted easily into a particular category although a few proved border line. Source 1. Husband or wife. 2. Other relative. 3. Friend. 4. Nurse or other professional. 5. Chemist. 6. Magazine, book, television. 7. Self-treatment.