衡量对初级保健的信任。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Milbank Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1111/1468-0009.12654
Zachary Merenstein, Jill C Shuemaker, Robert L Phillips
{"title":"衡量对初级保健的信任。","authors":"Zachary Merenstein, Jill C Shuemaker, Robert L Phillips","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Policy Points Trust in primary care clinicians is essential for effective patient care and is associated with better health outcomes, but it is rarely assessed, and existing measures have not been thoroughly evaluated. This scoping review reveals that research assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians largely stopped more than a decade ago but offers candidate measures for future testing, implementation, and policy applications.</p><p><strong>Context: </strong>Trust is a fundamental aspect of any human relationship, and medical care is no exception. An ongoing, trusting relationship between clinicians and patients has shown demonstrable value to primary care. However, there is currently no measure of trust in general use, and none endorsed for use by most value-based payment programs. This review searched the literature for any existing measures of patient trust in primary care clinicians and assessed their potential to be implemented as a patient-reported outcome measure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A keyword search on PubMed along with scanning references was conducted to find any trust measures in health care. Measures that did not address primary care clinicians were eliminated and the remaining measures were then assessed for their utility to primary care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This purposeful, scoping review found four tested measures for assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians that are candidates for general use. Of these four, the revised Trust in Physicians Scale and Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale are the most tested and viable options.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Renewed national interest in trust in health care should focus on the capacity to measure it. This review informs the effort to test trust measures for use in research, practice improvement, and value-based payment. Measuring trust, how it relates to outcomes, and learning how it is produced or lost are key to assisting practices and health systems toward earning it.</p>","PeriodicalId":49810,"journal":{"name":"Milbank Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":"841-880"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10509519/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Trust in Primary Care.\",\"authors\":\"Zachary Merenstein, Jill C Shuemaker, Robert L Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-0009.12654\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Policy Points Trust in primary care clinicians is essential for effective patient care and is associated with better health outcomes, but it is rarely assessed, and existing measures have not been thoroughly evaluated. This scoping review reveals that research assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians largely stopped more than a decade ago but offers candidate measures for future testing, implementation, and policy applications.</p><p><strong>Context: </strong>Trust is a fundamental aspect of any human relationship, and medical care is no exception. An ongoing, trusting relationship between clinicians and patients has shown demonstrable value to primary care. However, there is currently no measure of trust in general use, and none endorsed for use by most value-based payment programs. This review searched the literature for any existing measures of patient trust in primary care clinicians and assessed their potential to be implemented as a patient-reported outcome measure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A keyword search on PubMed along with scanning references was conducted to find any trust measures in health care. Measures that did not address primary care clinicians were eliminated and the remaining measures were then assessed for their utility to primary care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This purposeful, scoping review found four tested measures for assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians that are candidates for general use. Of these four, the revised Trust in Physicians Scale and Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale are the most tested and viable options.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Renewed national interest in trust in health care should focus on the capacity to measure it. This review informs the effort to test trust measures for use in research, practice improvement, and value-based payment. Measuring trust, how it relates to outcomes, and learning how it is produced or lost are key to assisting practices and health systems toward earning it.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Milbank Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"841-880\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10509519/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Milbank Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12654\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Milbank Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12654","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政策要点对初级保健临床医生的信任对于有效的患者护理至关重要,并与更好的健康结果有关,但很少对其进行评估,现有措施也没有得到彻底评估。这项范围界定审查显示,评估患者对初级保健临床医生信任的研究在十多年前基本上停止了,但为未来的测试、实施和政策应用提供了候选措施。背景:信任是任何人际关系的基本方面,医疗也不例外。临床医生和患者之间持续的信任关系已显示出对初级保健的明显价值。然而,目前在一般用途中没有衡量信任的标准,也没有被大多数基于价值的支付计划认可使用。这篇综述在文献中搜索了任何现有的患者对初级保健临床医生信任的衡量标准,并评估了它们作为患者报告结果衡量标准的潜力。方法:在PubMed上进行关键词搜索,并扫描参考文献,以查找医疗保健中的任何信任措施。取消了不针对初级保健临床医生的措施,然后评估剩余措施对初级保健的效用。结果:这项有目的、范围界定的审查发现了四项测试指标,用于评估患者对初级保健临床医生的信任,这些临床医生是通用的候选者。在这四种方法中,修订后的医师信任量表和维克森林医师信任度量表是最受测试和可行的选择。结论:重新激发国家对医疗保健信任的兴趣,应该把重点放在衡量信任的能力上。这篇综述为测试信任措施在研究、实践改进和基于价值的支付中的应用提供了依据。衡量信任,它与结果的关系,以及了解信任是如何产生或失去的,是帮助实践和卫生系统获得信任的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measuring Trust in Primary Care.

Policy Points Trust in primary care clinicians is essential for effective patient care and is associated with better health outcomes, but it is rarely assessed, and existing measures have not been thoroughly evaluated. This scoping review reveals that research assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians largely stopped more than a decade ago but offers candidate measures for future testing, implementation, and policy applications.

Context: Trust is a fundamental aspect of any human relationship, and medical care is no exception. An ongoing, trusting relationship between clinicians and patients has shown demonstrable value to primary care. However, there is currently no measure of trust in general use, and none endorsed for use by most value-based payment programs. This review searched the literature for any existing measures of patient trust in primary care clinicians and assessed their potential to be implemented as a patient-reported outcome measure.

Methods: A keyword search on PubMed along with scanning references was conducted to find any trust measures in health care. Measures that did not address primary care clinicians were eliminated and the remaining measures were then assessed for their utility to primary care.

Results: This purposeful, scoping review found four tested measures for assessing patients' trust in primary care clinicians that are candidates for general use. Of these four, the revised Trust in Physicians Scale and Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale are the most tested and viable options.

Conclusion: Renewed national interest in trust in health care should focus on the capacity to measure it. This review informs the effort to test trust measures for use in research, practice improvement, and value-based payment. Measuring trust, how it relates to outcomes, and learning how it is produced or lost are key to assisting practices and health systems toward earning it.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Milbank Quarterly
Milbank Quarterly 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Milbank Quarterly is devoted to scholarly analysis of significant issues in health and health care policy. It presents original research, policy analysis, and commentary from academics, clinicians, and policymakers. The in-depth, multidisciplinary approach of the journal permits contributors to explore fully the social origins of health in our society and to examine in detail the implications of different health policies. Topics addressed in The Milbank Quarterly include the impact of social factors on health, prevention, allocation of health care resources, legal and ethical issues in health policy, health and health care administration, and the organization and financing of health care.
期刊最新文献
When the Bough Breaks: The Financial Burden of Childbirth and Postpartum Care by Insurance Type. Launching Financial Incentives for Physician Groups to Improve Equity of Care by Patient Race and Ethnicity. Population Health Implications of Medicaid Prerelease and Transition Services for Incarcerated Populations. Overcoming the Impact of Students for Fair Admission v Harvard to Build a More Representative Health Care Workforce: Perspectives from Ending Unequal Treatment. A Mixed-Methods Exploration of the Implementation of Policies That Earmarked Taxes for Behavioral Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1