Cited by 617Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEmpathy and Medical EducationHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Concepts of trust among patients with serious illness

Mechanic, David, Meyer, Sharon·2000·Social Science & Medicine

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00014-9

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mechanic, D., & Meyer, S.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Mechanic, David
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-09
Volume
51
Issue
5
Pages
657-668
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996159838
Cited by
617
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 24
FWCI
20.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
patient trust, physician-patient relationship, serious illness, breast cancer, Lyme disease, mental illness, physician competence, fiduciary obligations, patient agency, listening, self-help groups, illness experience
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Mental Disorders, Breast Neoplasms, Confidentiality, Female, Humans, Insurance, Health, Lyme Disease, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review