IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0106844.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Trust in Physician: A Systematic Review of Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Evamaria Müller
  • Jördis M Zill
  • Jörg Dirmaier
  • Martin Härter
  • Isabelle Scholl

Abstract

Over the last decades, trust in physician has gained in importance. Studies have shown that trust in physician is associated with positive health behaviors in patients. However, the validity of empirical findings fundamentally depends on the quality of the measures in use. Our aim was to provide an overview of trust in physician measures and to evaluate the methodological quality of the psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of identified measures. We conducted an electronic search in three databases (Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo). The secondary search strategy included reference and citation tracking of included full texts and consultation of experts in the field. Retrieved records were screened independently by two reviewers. Full texts that reported on testing of psychometric properties of trust in physician measures were included in the review. Study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted. We evaluated the quality of design, methods and reporting of studies with the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed with Terwee’s 2007 quality criteria. After screening 3284 records and assessing 169 full texts for eligibility, fourteen studies on seven trust in physician measures were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and used English measures. All but one measure were generic. Sample sizes range from 25 to 1199 participants, recruited in very heterogeneous settings. Quality assessments revealed several flaws in the methodological quality of studies. COSMIN scores were mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of measures’ psychometric properties was intermediate. Several trust in physician measures have been developed over the last years, but further psychometric evaluation of these measures is strongly recommended. The methodological quality of psychometric property studies could be improved by adhering to quality criteria like the COSMIN checklist.

Suggested Citation

  • Evamaria Müller & Jördis M Zill & Jörg Dirmaier & Martin Härter & Isabelle Scholl, 2014. "Assessment of Trust in Physician: A Systematic Review of Measures," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0106844
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106844
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106844
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106844&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0106844?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0106844. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.