Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 13, Issue 10, pp 681–686 | Cite as

Patients’ trust in their physicians

Effects of choice, continuity, and payment method
  • Audiey C. Kao
  • Diane C. Green
  • Nancy A. Davis
  • Jeffrey P. Koplan
  • Paul D. Cleary
Original Articles

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which physician choice, length of patient-physician relationship, and perceived physician payment method predict patients’ trust in their physician.

DESIGN: Survey of patients of physicians in Atlanta, Georgia.

PATIENTS: Subjects were 292 patients aged 18 years and older.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Scale of patients’ trust in their physician was the main outcome measure. Most patients completely trusted their physicians “to put their needs above all other considerations” (69%). Patients who reported having enough choice of physician (p<.05), a longer relationship with the physician (p<.001), and who trusted their managed care organization (p<.001) were more likely to trust their physician. Approximately two thirds of all respondents did not know the method by which their physician was paid. The majority of patients believed paying a physician each time a test is done rather than a fixed monthly amount would not affect their care (72.4%). However, 40.5% of all respondents believed paying a physician more for ordering fewer than the average number of tests would make their care worse. Of these patients, 53.3% would accept higher copayments to obtain necessary medical tests.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients’ trust in their physician is related to having a choice of physicians, having a longer relationship with their physician, and trusting their managed care organization. Most patients are unaware of their physician’s payment method, but many are concerned about payment methods that might discourage medical use.

Key words

patients’ trust choice of physician patient-physician relationship physician payment method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beauchamp T, Childless J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katz J. The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. New York, NY: Free Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Macklin R. Enemies of Patients. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodwin M. Medicine, Money and Morals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emanuel EJ, Dubler NN. Preserving the physician-patient relationship in the era of managed care. JAMA. 1995;273:323–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barber B. The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gambetta D, ed. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations. New York, NY: Blackwell; 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kramer RM, Tyler TR, eds. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mechanic D. Changing medical organization and the erosion of trust. Milbank Q. 1996;74:171–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blendon RJ, Knox RA, Brodie M, Benson JM, Chervinsky G. Americans compare managed care, Medicare, and fee-for-service. J Am Health Policy. 1994;4:42–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoerger TJ, Howard LZ. Search behavior and choice of physician in the market for prental care. Med Care. 1995;33:332–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mechanic D, Ettel T, Davis D. Choosing among health insurance options: a study of new employees. Inquiry. 1990;27:14–23.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell JH, Dunn JP. Employee’s choice of a health plan and their subsequent satisfaction. J Occup Med. 1984;26:361–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hillman AL, Pauly MV, Kerstein JJ. How do payment methods affect physicians’ clinical decisions and the financial performance of health maintenance organizations? N Engl J Med. 1989;321:86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hillman AL. The impact of physician payment methods on high-risk populations in managed care. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995;8(Suppl 1):S23–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sulmasy DP. Physicians, cost control, and ethics. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:920–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson LA, Dedrick RF. Development of the trust in physician scale: a measure to assess trust in patient-physician relationships. Psychol Rep. 1990;67:1091–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanter DL, Mirvis PH. The Cynical Americans: Living and Working in an Age of Discontent and Disillusion. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Janoff-Bulman R. Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: applications of the schema construct. Soc Cognition. 1993;7:113–36.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coleman PG, Shellow RA. Privacy and autonomy in the physician-patient relationship: independent contracting under Medicare and implications for expansion into managed care. J Leg Med. 1995;16:509–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wennberg JE. Health care reform and professionalism. Inquiry. 1994;31:296–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sederer LI, Mirin SM. The impact of managed care on clinical practice. Psychiatr Q. 1994;65:177–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dubler NN. Individual advocacy as a governing principle. J Case Manage. 1992;1:82–6.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenthal TC, Teimenschneider TA, Feather J. Preserving the patient referral process in the managed care environment. Am J Med. 1996;100:338–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Korcok M. Capitation begins to transform the face of American medicine. Can Med Assoc J. 1996;154:688–91.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Flynn MB. Power, professionalism, and patient advocacy. Am J Surg. 1995;170:407–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Apple GJ. Who bears the risk when physicians are also insurers? Minn Med. 1995;78:23–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clouthier M. The evolution of managed care. Trends Health Care Law Ethics. 1995;10:67–72.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Solberg LI, Isham G, Kottke TE, et al. Competing HMOs collaborate to improve preventive services. Jt J Qual Improv. 1995;21:600–10.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morrow RW, Gooding AD, Clark C. Improving physicians’ preventive health care behavior through peer review and payment methods. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4:165–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robinson JA, Robinson KJ, Lewis DJ. Balancing quality of care and cost-effectiveness through case management. Anna J. 1992;19:182–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Angell M. The doctor as double agent. Kennedy Inst J Ethics. 1993;3:279–86.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Orentlicher D. Managed care and the threat to the patient-physician relationship. Trends Health Care Law Ethics. 1995;101:19–24.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swee DE. Health care system reform and the changing physician-patient relationship. N J Med. 1995;92:313–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rodwin MA. Conflicts in managed care. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:604–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nelms CR Jr. Ethical physicians cannot serve two masters. Minn Med. 1994;77:51.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lipset SM, Schneider W. The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind. New York, NY: Free Press; 1983.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sheppard BH, Lewicki RJ, Minton JW. Organization Justice: The Search for Fairness in the Workplace. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books; 1992.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gray BH. Trust and trustworthy care in the managed care era. Health Affairs. 1997;16:34–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Duck S, Perlman D, eds. Understanding Personal Relationships. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans. New York, NY: Foster Higgins; 1996.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Group Health Association of America/American Medical Care and Review Association Managed Health Care Directory. Washington, DC: AMCRA; 1995.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mechanic D, Schlesinger M. The impact of managed care on patients’ trust in medical care and their physicians. JAMA. 1996;275:1693–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Montague J. Managed care is dumping many physicians, but some aren’t going to take it lying down. Striking back. Hosp Health Netw. 1994;68:38–44.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bailey CW Jr. How to avoid being dropped from managed care plans. Postgrad Med. 1994;95:59–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Guglielmo WJ. How to avoid deselection. Med Econ. 1996;73:149–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Graddy B. TMA takes aim against deselection. Tex Med. 1994;90:14–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ortolon K. Deselection, round two: TMA takes due process with managed care organizations to US Congress. Tex Med. 1994;90:20–2.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brouillette JN. Bilateral deselection. J Fla Med Assoc. 1995;82:423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Morreim EH. Economic disclosure and economic advocacy. New duties in the medical standard of care. J Leg Med. 1991;12:275–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audiey C. Kao
    • 1
  • Diane C. Green
    • 2
  • Nancy A. Davis
    • 2
  • Jeffrey P. Koplan
    • 2
  • Paul D. Cleary
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Care PolicyHarvard Medical SchoolBoston
  2. 2.the Prudential Center for Health Care ResearchAtlanta

Personalised recommendations