ArticleQuality & safety in health care2004
Re-thinking accountability: trust versus confidence in medical practice.
Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health system responsiveness: a systematic evidence mapping review of the global literature.International journal for equity in health · 2021Pooled it
- Ubuntu as a blueprint: learning ethical transdisciplinarity from African indigenous knowledge systems.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- What's trust got to do with research: why not accountability?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023Article
- Grounded accountability in life-and-death high-consequence healthcare settings.Journal of health organization and management · 2021Article
- The social licence for data-intensive health research: towards co-creation, public value and trust.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Institutions of care, moral proximity and demoralisation: The case of the emergency department.Social theory & health : STH · 2016Article
- Risk, governance and the experience of care.Sociology of health & illness · 2013Article
- Pandemic ventilator rationing and appeals processes.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2011Article
- Supportive accountability: a model for providing human support to enhance adherence to eHealth interventions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2011Article
- Regulation and the social licence for medical research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2008Article
- Is the traditional family doctor an anachronism?London journal of primary care · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In seeking to prevent a reoccurrence of scandals such as that involving cardiac surgery in Bristol, the UK government has adopted a model of regulation that uses rules and surveillance as a way of both improving the quality of care delivered and increasing confidence in healthcare institutions. However, this approach may actually act to reduce confidence and trust while also reducing the moral motivation of practitioners. Accountability in health care is discussed, and it is suggested that openness about the difficult dilemmas that arise when practitioners have a duty to be accountable to more than one audience may be an alternative means of restoring trust. A greater emphasis on the sharing of information between individual health professionals and their patients would increase trust and would allow patients to hold their doctors to account for the quality of care they receive. Concentrating more on developing trust by the sharing of information and less on the futile search for complete confidence in systems and rules may improve the quality of care delivered while also nurturing the moral motivation of professionals upon which the delivery of high quality health care depends.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.