Public trust and initiatives for new health care partnerships.

Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA.
Milbank Quarterly (Impact Factor: 5.06). 02/1998; 76(2):281-302. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.00089
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Effective communication between doctor and patient is a critical component of high-quality care. The physician's credibility has a significant effect on treatment outcomes. Because changes in medicine and larger cultural trends challenge the ability of clinicians to engage their patients' trust, new kinds of partnerships must be created. To do this effectively, physicians have to sharpen their communication skills and devise strategies for assuring that their patients become informed allies in their own treatment. A number of innovations are helping to build these alliances: training in communication skills; creative uses of the Internet and videotape technologies; improved "customer service" programs; critical pathways for patients; and special educational aids. All these tools promise to be useful, but they require careful development and evaluation.


Available from: David Mechanic, Apr 01, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Trust has long been regarded as a vitally important aspect of the relationship between health service providers and patients. Recently, consumer choice has been increasingly advocated as a means of improving the quality and effectiveness of health service provision. However, it is uncertain how the increase of information necessary to allow users of health services to exercise choice, and the simultaneous introduction of markets in public health systems, will affect various dimensions of trust, and how changing relations of trust will impact upon patients and services. This article employs a theory-driven approach to investigate conceptual and material links between choice, trust and markets in health care in the context of the National Health Service in England. It also examines the implications of patient choice on systemic, organisational and interpersonal trust. The article is divided into two parts. The first argues that the shift to marketisation in public health services might lead to an over-reliance on rational-calculative aspects of trust at the expense of embodied, relational and social attributes. The second develops an alternative psychosocial conception of trust: it focuses on the central role of affect and accounts for the material and symbolic links between choice, trust and markets in health care.
    Sociology of Health & Illness 12/2014; Vol 36(Issue 8):1276-1294. DOI:10.1111/1467-9566.12170 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research on trust in health care faces two enduring challenges. Firstly, there are conceptual ambiguities in distinguishing trust from related concepts, such as confidence or dependence. Second, the tacit understandings which underpin the 'faith' element of trust are difficult to explicate. A case study of British pensioners who have moved to Spain provides an opportunity to explore trust in a setting where they often have a choice of where to access health care (UK or Spain), and are therefore not in a state of dependence, and in which the 'differences' of a new field generates reflection on their tacit expectations of providers and systems. In accounting for decisions to use (or not to use) Spanish health care, British pensioners cited experiential knowledge of symbolic indicators of trustworthy institutions (they were hygienic, modern, efficient), which contributed to background confidence in the system, and interpersonal qualities of practitioners (respect for older people, embodied empathy and reciprocity) which evoked familiar relations, within which faith is implicit. In contrast, with limited recent access to the British system, their background confidence had been compromised by reports of poor performance, with few opportunities to rebuild the interrelational bases of trust. © 2014 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for Sociology of Health and Illness (SHIL).
    Sociology of Health & Illness 11/2014; 36(8):1243-58. DOI:10.1111/1467-9566.12163 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source