IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v51y2000i5p657-668.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness

Author

Listed:
  • Mechanic, David
  • Meyer, Sharon

Abstract

This paper examines conceptions of trust among three groups of respondents diagnosed with either breast cancer, Lyme disease or mental illness. Interviews were carried out using an open-ended interview guide to explore how patients made assessments of trust in their doctors and health care plans. The guide followed a conceptual approach that asked questions about competence, agency/fiduciary responsibility, control, disclosure and confidentiality. Respondents were given ample opportunity to raise other areas of concern. The data were organized using the NUDIST© software package for the analysis of non-numerical and unstructured qualitative data. Patients viewed trust as an iterative process and commonly tested their physicians against their knowledge and expectations. Interpersonal competence, involving caring, concern and compassion, was the most common aspect of trust reported, with listening as a central focus. Most patient comments referred to learnable skills and not simply to personality characteristics. Technical competence also received high priority but was often assessed by reputation or interpersonal cues. Patients were much concerned that doctors be their agents and fight for their interests with health care plans. Disclosure and confidentiality were less common concerns; most patients anticipated that doctors would be honest with them and respect their confidences. Patients' responses also appeared to vary by their disease, their socio-demographic characteristics, their involvement with self-help groups, and how their illness conditions unfolded.

Suggested Citation

  • Mechanic, David & Meyer, Sharon, 2000. "Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(5), pages 657-668, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:5:p:657-668
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00014-9
    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:51:y:2000:i:5:p:657-668. 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.