IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v56y2003i7p1453-1468.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust and the development of health care as a social institution

Author

Listed:
  • Gilson, Lucy

Abstract

Health systems are inherently relational and so many of the most critical challenges for health systems are relationship and behaviour problems. Yet the disciplinary perspectives that underlie traditional health policy analysis offer only limited and partial insights into human behaviour and relationships. The health sector, therefore, has much to learn from the wider literature on behaviour and the factors that influence it. A central feature of recent debates, particularly, but not only, in relation to social capital, is trust and its role in facilitating collective action, that is co-operation among people to achieve common goals. The particular significance of trust is that it offers an alternative approach to the economic individualism that has driven public policy analysis in recent decades. This paper considers what the debates on trust have to offer health policy analysis by exploring the meaning, bases and outcomes of trust, and its relevance to health systems. It, first, presents a synthesis of theoretical perspectives on the notion of trust. Second, it argues both that trust underpins the co-operation within health systems that is necessary to health production, and that a trust-based health system can make an important contribution to building value in society. Finally, five conclusions are drawn for an approach to health policy analysis that takes trust seriously.

Suggested Citation

  • Gilson, Lucy, 2003. "Trust and the development of health care as a social institution," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1453-1468, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:7:p:1453-1468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00142-9
    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:56:y:2003:i:7:p:1453-1468. 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.