4.5 Article

A Mixed Methods Examination of Health Care Provider Behaviors That Build Patients' Trust

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 104, 期 5, 页码 1222-1228

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified key provider behaviors that build patient trust, including effective communication, caring, and competence. Survey results showed that patients' trust in providers was highly correlated with these key behaviors.
Objective: Patient trust in health care providers is associated with better health behaviors and utilization, yet provider trust has not been consistently conceptualized. This study uses qualitative methods to identify the key health provider behaviors that patients report build their trust, and data from a national U.S. survey of adults to test the robustness of the qualitative findings. Methods: In this mixed methods study, we conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample to identify the provider behaviors that build trust. We then analyzed a nationally representative survey (n = 6,517) to examine the relationship between respondents' trust in their usual provider and the key trust-related behaviors identified in the qualitative interviews. Results: Interviewees reported that health providers build trust by communicating effectively (listening and providing detailed explanations), caring about their patients (treating them as individuals, valuing their experience, and showing commitment to solving their health issues), and demonstrating competence (being knowledgeable, thorough, and solving their health issues). Trust in one's provider was highly correlated with all eight survey items measuring communication, caring, and competence. Conclusions: To build trust with patients, health providers should actively listen, provide detailed explanations, show caring for patients, and demonstrate their knowledge. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据