• Login
    View Item 
    •   Athenaeum Home
    • BioMed Central Open Access Articles
    • Open Access Articles by UGA Faculty
    • View Item
    •   Athenaeum Home
    • BioMed Central Open Access Articles
    • Open Access Articles by UGA Faculty
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    A qualitative study of patient (dis)trust in public and private hospitals: the importance of choice and pragmatic acceptance for trust considerations in South Australia

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    12913_2015_Article_967.pdf (467.8Kb)
    Date
    2015-07-30
    Author
    Ward, Paul R
    Rokkas, Philippa
    Cenko, Clinton
    Pulvirenti, Mariastella
    Dean, Nicola
    Carney, Simon
    Brown, Patrick
    Calnan, Michael
    Meyer, Samantha
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Abstract Background This paper explores the nature and reasoning for (dis)trust in Australian public and private hospitals. Patient trust increases uptake of, engagement with and optimal outcomes from healthcare services and is therefore central to health practice, policy and planning. Methods A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Results ‘Private patients’ made active choices about both their hospital and doctor, playing the role of the ‘consumer’, where trust and choice went hand in hand. The reputation of the doctor and hospital were key drivers of trust, under the assumption that a better reputation equates with higher quality care. However, making a choice to trust a doctor led to personal responsibility and the additional requirement for self-trust. ‘Public patients’ described having no choice in their hospital or doctor. They recognised ‘problems’ in the public healthcare system but accepted and even excused these as ‘part of the system’. In order to justify their trust, they argued that doctors in public hospitals tried to do their best in difficult circumstances, thereby deserving of trust. This ‘resigned trust’ may stem from a lack of alternatives for free health care and thus a dependence on the system. Conclusion These two contrasting models of trust within the same locality point to the way different configurations of healthcare systems, hospital experiences, insurance coverage and related forms of ‘choice’ combine to shape different formats of trust, as patients act to manage their vulnerability within these contexts.
    URI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0967-0
    http://hdl.handle.net/10724/31963
    Collections
    • Open Access Articles by UGA Faculty

    About Athenaeum | Contact Us | Send Feedback
     

     

    Browse

    All of AthenaeumCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    About Athenaeum | Contact Us | Send Feedback