IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v32y1991i2p153-157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The management of confidentiality in general medical practice: A comparative study in the U.S.A. and the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Lako, C.J.
  • Lindenthal, J.J.

Abstract

This paper describes the results of two studies in New Jersey and the eastern part of the Netherlands into the management of confidentiality among physicians in general medical practice. The physicians were presented with vignettes about confidentiality and were asked what course of action they would pursue. The results suggest that the physicians in New Jersey are less willing to disclose information without the patient's consent to insurance physicians or occupational health physicians than their Dutch colleagues. However, in more conflicting situations the American physicians tend to favor more disclosure of information than their Dutch counterparts. Explanations of these differences include aspects of the legal system in New Jersey and the Netherlands.

Suggested Citation

  • Lako, C.J. & Lindenthal, J.J., 1991. "The management of confidentiality in general medical practice: A comparative study in the U.S.A. and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 153-157, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:2:p:153-157
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(91)90055-H
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:32:y:1991:i:2:p:153-157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.