Previous qualitative research has described that previous misdiagnoses may reduce patient and their families’ trust in healthcare.
To quantify the associations between patients or family members’ misdiagnosis experiences and trust in their physician.
Adult Japanese people with non-communicable diseases (cancer, diabetes, depression, heart disease, and connective tissue disease), recruited using a web-based panel survey.
Surveys assessed the patient and the patient’s family’s experience with misdiagnosis. Trust in the respondent’s current physician was measured using the Japanese version of the 11-item Trust in Physician Scale.
Among 661 patients (response rate 30.1%), 23.2% had a personal history of misdiagnosis and 20.4% had a family history of misdiagnosis. In a multivariable-adjusted general linear model, patients or a family members’ misdiagnosis experiences were associated with lower confidence in their current physician (mean difference −4.3, 95%CI −8.1 to −0.49 and −3.2, 95%CI −6.3 to −0.05, respectively). The impact of having a personal and a family member’s experience of misdiagnosis on trust was additive, with no evidence of interaction (P for interaction = 0.494).
The patient’s or family members’ misdiagnosis experiences reduced trust in the patient’s current physicians. Interventions specifically targeting misdiagnosed patients are needed to restore trust.
Patient trust in physicians is central to the patient-physician relationship.1 It refers to patients’ belief in the physician’s credibility or their confidence in the latter’s capacity to influence health outcomes, called competence.2 Interpersonal trust between patients and clinicians fosters shared decision-making regarding treatment plans.3 Low trust is associated with negative health behaviors, including lower adherence to medications, compliance with treatment plan,4,5,6,7,8 and lower continuity of care.8
Misdiagnosis may lead to distrust in physicians, as the patient’s negative experience diminishes perceptions of physician’s competence, which is a theoretical component of trust. Approximately 5% of the adult population in the USA experience a misdiagnosis.9 Misdiagnosis accounts for about a third of preventable deaths in England10 and often leads to medical litigation.11,12 Despite the serious consequences, limited studies have examined the impact of previous misdiagnosis experiences on trust in future physicians.
Previously, the effects of misdiagnosis experiences on the trust of patients and their families were described as components of medical errors. Qualitative studies report that medical errors, including misdiagnosis, cause patients and their families to lose confidence in healthcare and avoid medical care,13 which persist over five years.14 Although misdiagnosis remains a vivid negative memory for patients14 and may shape their attitudes toward other physicians,15 no quantitative studies have assessed whether patients or their family members’ past misdiagnosis experiences affect trust in their current physicians. Studies quantifying such impacts could help to develop interventions to restore trust in current physicians and maintain a favorable therapeutic relationship. Japan is a good laboratory, since the population is largely comprised of a single ethnic group that is matched to physicians.
Our study’s purpose was to investigate the associations of Japanese patients and their family members’ misdiagnosis experiences with patient trust in their current physician.
Setting and Participant Selection
Our study, a cross-sectional online survey, was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Kansai University (# 138). We conducted a panel survey supported by a web-based company (Cross Marketing, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo) to recruit Japanese patients with non-communicable diseases, aged 20 years or older. Participants were offered incentive points, which can be redeemed for cash, gift certificates, mileage, etc. Participants answered an online questionnaire form prepared by the company. The response data were collected between April 27, 2020, and April 28, 2020, and stored in the server owned by the company. Participants were instructed to answer only once, and researchers could use only the initial entry if they answered more than once. Only those who provided informed consent statement could answer the questionnaire.
Designing Screener Items
To assess for the presence of careless participants,16,17 multiple “screener” items were designed to identify and exclude them from our analysis.17
Screening for Non-communicable Diseases
Participants were asked to select any of the following diseases for which they had received medical treatment twice or more within the past six months: heart disease (arrhythmia), heart disease (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction), heart disease (heart failure), diabetes, rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis), rheumatic diseases (systemic lupus erythematosus), cancer (limited only to those currently being treated), and depression. These chronic diseases were selected for our survey because they either had high prevalence or required life-long treatment. Then, they identified the most troublesome illness from those chosen previously. Participants who selected a disease different from the previous choices were excluded.
Validation by Self-reported Drug Name
Participants were instructed to provide the name of a medication prescribed for the most troubling disease in a free-text format. We searched for label information online to assess whether the relevant disease was listed for the indication, in which case, the responses were considered valid. Those who chose cancer and answered “none” for their prescribed drugs were also included, as not all cancer treatments require drug prescriptions. Two researchers conducted these assessments independently; if the evaluations varied, a decision was reached through discussion.
We excluded those completing the survey in under 5 min, based on pilot testing of required time to complete the questions. Those who responded too quickly were categorized as careless16,17 and excluded from our analyses.
Modified Version of the Trust in Physician Scale
For this study, the 11-item Trust in Physician Scale modified by Thom8 was translated into Japanese after obtaining the original developer’s permission. Two physicians (N.Y. and N.O.), a physician researcher (N.K.), and a quantitative psychologist (T.W.) with experience in scale development translated the scale into Japanese. Then, it was back-translated into English by two bilingual individuals (one American and one Canadian). The items were compared with the original items, and the translated and back-translated versions were amended. Finally, they were sent to the original author, and some minor improvements were made. The final version was approved by the original author (Supplementary Table 1).
Before answering the questionnaire, participants read the following statements: “Please answer about your doctor who provides care for your [the most troublesome disease selected by the participant was automatically displayed here]. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?” Participants were instructed to rate each item on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). We then inverted the score for four negatively-worded items, and converted the sum of all item scores to a score ranging from 0 to 100.8
Experience with Misdiagnosis
To assess participants’ own experience of misdiagnosis, they were first given the following instruction: “Looking back at all the medical care you have received, please choose 1 (have had) or 2 (have not) if you have or have not experienced it, respectively.” Then, the following question was asked: “Have you been misdiagnosed about your illness?”
To assess a family member’s misdiagnosis experience, participants were provided the same aforementioned instructions, following by the question “Has a family member ever been misdiagnosed by a physician?”
Other Patient Survey Variables
A detailed description of items selection and their hypothesized correlations with patient trust are provided in supplementary material (Supplementary Item 1). Patient satisfaction, scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, was assessed using the item “Overall, are you extremely satisfied with the doctor?”18 Patients’ willingness to follow their physicians, scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, was examined using the item “If my doctor moves to another medical institution, I would like to visit that institution to see them.”19 Further, physicians’ supportive attitudes during visits, scored on a 6-point ranging scale from completely disagree to completely agree, were assessed using the item “My doctor helped me understand all the information.” 20 This item is considered as an attitude that reflects patients’ trust in their physician to prioritize what the patient cares about and provide required medical support.2 The item “I can overcome most illnesses without a physician’s help” examined patients’ skeptical attitude toward medical care; it was scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.21. This is a modified item from a scale that evaluates medical skepticism.22 Patients’ general level of interpersonal trust was assessed using the 6-item General Trust Scale,23 rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The score was computed by summing the items.
Demographic characteristics including age, sex, education level, total household income, and zip code were collected as covariates. We categorized residents’ prefectures based on the first three digits of the zip code. The durations of the patient-physician relationships were categorized as less than 1 year, 1–3 years, and more than 3 years.8,24
All statistical analyses were performed using the Stata/SE version 15 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Participant characteristics were summarized as mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables.
A factor analysis using the MINRES examined the factorial structure of the Trust in Physician Scale items. The number of latent factors was assessed by the eigenvalue attenuation.25 The absolute factor loadings were calculated. We performed a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the fit of the one-factor model to the data, because the original scale had one factor.8 Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients.26 Construct validity was examined by using the correlation between the Trust in Physician Scale and the following factors: patient satisfaction, patient’s choice of physician, physician’s supportive attitude during the visit, and duration of patients’ relationship with their physician.8 Additionally, it was assessed by testing the correlation between the Trust in Physician and the General Trust scales and patients’ attitude toward medical care. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was calculated to test the correlation.
To estimate the association between misdiagnosis experience and trust in physicians, we fitted a series of general linear models with cluster-robust variance that accounted for the clustering effect by prefectures.27 In unadjusted analyses, patients and their family’s misdiagnosis experiences were fit to a separate model. In the multivariable-adjusted analysis, patients and their families’ experience of misdiagnosis, as well as covariates (age,8,24,28 sex,28 level of education, total household income,28 comorbidities, and the duration of the relationship with their physicians8,24), were fitted to a single model. These covariates were chosen as they could be associated with both trust in physicians and the misdiagnosis experience. To examine any interaction between patients and their families’ misdiagnosis experience, their product term was entered into the multivariable-adjusted model. Interaction was assessed using the Wald test.
Overall, 3199 individuals received the email invitation to the survey, and 964 individuals participated (response rate 30.1%). After excluding 303 individuals for carelessness or missing covariates, 661 were included in the primary analysis (Fig. 1).
The mean age was 62.7 years, and 175 (26.5%) participants were female (Table 1). Residence included 46 prefectures, with Kanto being the most common one (41.3%), followed by Kansai (20.0%). Cancer was the most common troublesome disease (36.6%), followed by diabetes (26.5%), depression (17.7%), and heart disease (17.3%). Excluded respondents were slightly younger and less likely to be female, but did not differ in education, total household income, or region (Supplementary Table 2).
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND PSYCHOMETRIC TESTING OF THE TRUST IN PHYSICIAN SCALE
The eigenvalue indicated that the items had a strong unidimensionality (Supplementary Figure 1) with loadings suggesting a single factor solution (Supplementary Table 3). Our data was well fitted (RMSEA: 0.086, CFI: 0.95, SMSR: 0.049), and the survey had good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.91 and McDonald’s ω coefficient: 0.93)
The mean trust score was 70.5 (standard deviation: 15.1), ranging from 11.4 to 100, with only 2.6% of participants at the ceiling score of 100. The Trust in Physician Scale strongly correlated with satisfaction with the physician (ρ = 0.732) and their supportive attitudes during the visit (ρ = 0.731), suggesting construct validity (Table 2). The scale weakly correlated with the willingness to follow their physicians (ρ = 0.347) and very weakly with the duration of the relationship with the physician (ρ = 0.078). Trust as measured by the Trust in Physician Scale showed a weak positive correlation with general interpersonal trust (ρ = 0.300), suggesting that it measured a different concept. Furthermore, it was weakly and negatively correlated with skeptical attitudes toward medical care (ρ = −0.205).
Frequency of Misdiagnosis Experiences and Its Relationship with Trust in Physician
Overall, 153 participants (23.2%) had a history of misdiagnosis, and 135 (20.4%) had a family member who had been misdiagnosed. Of all the participants, 71 (10.7%) had both been misdiagnosed and had a family member who had been misdiagnosed.
In general, Japanese patients had high levels of trust in their providers. Older participants had higher trust scores than younger ones (Table 3: mean difference per 10-year difference: 1.17, 95%CI: 0.06–2.29). Higher income (10 million yen or more) was associated with greater trust (mean difference: 9.22, 95%CI: 3.38 to 15.1). Additionally, a longer relationship with the physician was associated with greater trust (mean difference for more than 3 years and for 1–3 years versus less than 1 year: 4.28, 95%CI: 0.28 to 8.27 and 1.13, 95%CI: −2.86 to 5.11, respectively).
The association between misdiagnosis experience and trust in physicians is shown in Table 3. There is insufficient evidence to suggest the interaction between the individual and relative’s misdiagnosis experience in the association with trust (P for interaction = 0.494); therefore, this result supports the associations between the two and trust is additive 29. Further analyses were performed without considering the interaction term between the two. Patients with a personal history of a misdiagnosis had lower trust (mean difference −4.30, 95%CI −8.12 to −0.49). Having a relative with a history of misdiagnosis also decreased trust (mean difference: −3.20, 95%CI −6.34 to −0.05). A personal or family history of misdiagnosis additively reduced trust, compared with individuals with no personal or family history of misdiagnoses (Fig. 2: mean difference: −7.50, 95%CI −10.5 to −4.53).
Having a personal or family history of a misdiagnosis reduces the patient’s trust in their current physicians. The impact of having both was additive, nearly doubling the impact on trust. Physicians should consider inquiring about misdiagnosis experiences, though additional research will be needed to see if open discussion improves trust.
Our findings also support previous qualitative findings about patients and family members’ negative emotions and behavioral responses to healthcare past misdiagnoses, and confirm previous general findings about patients’ trust in physicians. First, we found that older, wealthier Japanese patients had higher levels of trust, similar to findings from the USA.8,30 In addition, the finding of generally high levels of trust among Japanese adults was similar to the levels of trust among a predominately Caucasian American sample and a US Chinese older sample.8,31 Secondly, we found that loss of trust persists to current physicians, extending previous qualitative studies that found distrust for the physician who had made the error.13,14 Patients often have persistent memories from past medical errors,14 and loss of trust in current physicians is not surprising. Past experiences shape patients’ attitudes toward new physicians.15 Third, unlike previous studies that treated misdiagnosis as a component of medical errors,13,14,32 we isolated the effect of misdiagnosis. Since diagnostic accuracy can be considered part of a physician’s competence, a misdiagnosis may make patients lose confidence in their physicians and skeptical of other physicians. 33
Our findings have implications for physicians and researchers. First, physicians should inquire about patients and family members’ misdiagnosis experiences as part of initial visits. Second, patients with a personal or family history of misdiagnosis may have lower levels of trust. However, there is no data on how to rebuild trust among this population of patients.34 It is possible that the impact of a history of misdiagnosis on trust may be less when there has been a longer relationship between the patient and physician and this would be worth studying.
Several limitations of this study warrant mention. First, the sample may not be representative of patients. Men were nearly three times more represented than women, though we adjusted for gender in our analyses. Second, we were unable to determine whether the misdiagnosis experience was related to a current or a past condition. Third, we did not collect information on the consequence of the previous misdiagnosis; it could be that all misdiagnoses do have similar impact on trust.
In conclusion, individuals and family members’ misdiagnosis experiences were associated with a reduction in trust of their current physician. Furthermore, these misdiagnosis experiences had an additive effect. Future studies should develop interventions to improve trust lost from past misdiagnosis experiences.
Pearson SD, Raeke LH. Patients’ trust in physicians: many theories, few measures, and little data. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(7):509-13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.11002.x
Anderson LA, Dedrick RF. Development of the Trust in Physician scale: a measure to assess interpersonal trust in patient-physician relationships. Psychol Rep. 1990;67(3 Pt 2):1091-100. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.67.3f.1091
Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780-1. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1109283
Cuffee YL, Hargraves JL, Rosal M, Briesacher BA, Schoenthaler A, Person S, et al. Reported racial discrimination, trust in physicians, and medication adherence among inner-city African Americans with hypertension. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(11):e55-62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301554
Elder K, Ramamonjiarivelo Z, Wiltshire J, Piper C, Horn WS, Gilbert KL, et al. Trust, medication adherence, and hypertension control in Southern African American men. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(12):2242-5. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2012.300777
Nguyen GC, LaVeist TA, Harris ML, Datta LW, Bayless TM, Brant SR. Patient trust-in-physician and race are predictors of adherence to medical management in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009;15(8):1233-9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/ibd.20883
Safran DG, Taira DA, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, Ware JE, Tarlov AR. Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. J Fam Pract. 1998;47(3):213-20.
Thom DH, Ribisl KM, Stewart AL, Luke DA. Further Validation and Reliability Testing of the Trust in Physician Scale. The Stanford Trust Study Physicians. Med Care. 1999;37(5):510-7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199905000-00010
Singh H, Meyer AN, Thomas EJ. The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(9):727-31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627
Hogan H, Healey F, Neale G, Thomson R, Vincent C, Black N. Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(9):737-45. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-001159
Watari T, Tokuda Y, Mitsuhashi S, Otuki K, Kono K, Nagai N, et al. Factors and impact of physicians’ diagnostic errors in malpractice claims in Japan. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0237145. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237145
Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, et al. Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(19):2024-33. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa054479
Elder NC, Jacobson CJ, Zink T, Hasse L. How experiencing preventable medical problems changed patients’ interactions with primary health care. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):537-44. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.346
Ottosen MJ, Sedlock EW, Aigbe AO, Bell SK, Gallagher TH, Thomas EJ. Long-Term Impacts Faced by Patients and Families After Harmful Healthcare Events. J Patient Saf. 2018. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/pts.0000000000000451
Hall MA, Camacho F, Dugan E, Balkrishnan R. Trust in the medical profession: conceptual and measurement issues. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(5):1419-39. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.01070
Berinsky AJ, Margolis MF, Sances MW. Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self-Administered Surveys. Am J Pol Sci. 2014;58:739-53. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12081
Meade AW, Craig SB. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol Methods. 2012;17 3:437-55. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085
Dugan E, Trachtenberg F, Hall MA. Development of abbreviated measures to assess patient trust in a physician, a health insurer, and the medical profession. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005;5(1):64. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-5-64
Yamamoto T, Hashimoto M. Reliability and validity of a Japanese version of the trust in physician scale. J Jpn Soc Healthcare Adm. 2008;45(3):227-35 (in Japanese).
Goto Y, Miura H, Son D, Arai H, Kriston L, Scholl I, et al. Psychometric Evaluation of the Japanese 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and Its Association with Decision Conflict and Patient Factors in Japanese Primary Care. JMA J. 2020;3(3):208-15. DOI:10.31662/jmaj.2019-0069
Freburger JK, Callahan LF, Currey SS, Anderson LA. Use of the trust in physician scale in patients with rheumatic disease: Psychometric properties and correlates of trust in the rheumatologist. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49(1):51-8. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/art.10925
Fiscella K, Franks P, Clancy CM. Skepticism toward medical care and health care utilization. Med Care. 1998;36(2):180-9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199802000-00007
Yamagishi T, Yamagishi M. Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv Emot. 1994;18(2):129-66. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249397
Thom DH, Kravitz RL, Bell RA, Krupat E, Azari R. Patient trust in the physician: relationship to patient requests. Fam Pract. 2002;19(5):476-83. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/19.5.476
Costello AB, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Evaluation. 2005;10:7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399-412. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Cameron AC, Miller DL. A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. J Hum Resour. 2015;50(2):317-72. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
Croker JE, Swancutt DR, Roberts MJ, Abel GA, Roland M, Campbell JL. Factors affecting patients’ trust and confidence in GPs: evidence from the English national GP patient survey. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5). DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002762
de Mutsert R, de Jager DJ, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW. Interaction on an Additive Scale. Nephron Clin Pract. 2011;119(2):154-7. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1159/000327596
Armstrong K, Ravenell KL, McMurphy S, Putt M. Racial/Ethnic Differences in Physician Distrust in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(7):1283-9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2005.080762
Simon MA, Zhang M, Dong X. Trust in Physicians Among U.S. Chinese Older Adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014;69(Suppl_2):S46-S53. DOI:10.1093/gerona/glu174
Iedema R, Sorensen R, Manias E, Tuckett A, Piper D, Mallock N, et al. Patients’ and family members’ experiences of open disclosure following adverse events. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(6):421-32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzn043
Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AND, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Thomas EJ. Types and Origins of Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Settings. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(6):418-25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2777
Rolfe A, Cash-Gibson L, Car J, Sheikh A, McKinstry B. Interventions for improving patients’ trust in doctors and groups of doctors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(3). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004134.pub3
The abbreviated name of the study, “the TRUMP 2-Net (the Trust Measurement for Physicians and Patients - the Net survey),” was not derived from a specific individual; however, it was determined to suggest a trusted physician, through consideration of the fact that the word “trump” has an ancient meaning of “a dependable and exemplary person.”
This study was supported by the JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Number: JP 19KT0021). The funders had no role in the study design, analysis, or interpretation of the data; writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Suzuki, R., Yajima, N., Sakurai, K. et al. Association of Patients’ Past Misdiagnosis Experiences with Trust in Their Current Physician Among Japanese Adults. J GEN INTERN MED 37, 1115–1121 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06950-y
- patient trust
- family member
- non-communicable disease