ArticleBMC health services research2017
The relevance of different trust models for representation in patient organizations: conceptual considerations.
Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collecting Patient Feedback as a Means of Monitoring Patient Experience and Hospital Service Quality - Learning from a Government-led Initiative.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Representation in participatory health care decision-making: Reflections on an Application-Oriented Model.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Perceived Social Influences on Women's Decisions to use Medications not Studied in Pregnancy. A Qualitative Ethical Analysis of Preexposure Prophylaxis Implementation Research in Kenya.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Article
- Involving Patient Groups in Drug Research: A Systematic Review of Reasons.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- One For All, All For One? Collective Representation in Healthcare Policy.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTrust within organizations is important for ensuring members' acceptance of the organization's activities and to expand their scope of action. Remarkably, Patient Organizations (POs) that often both function as a forum for self-help and represent patients on the health-political level, have been understudied in this respect. This paper analyzes the relation between trust and representation in POs. We distinguish between two models of representation originating from political theory: the trustee and delegate model and between two types of trust: horizontal and vertical trust.
methodsOur theoretical approach is illustrated with an analysis of 13 interviews with representatives of German POs.
resultsWe have found that the delegate model requires horizontal trust and the trustee model vertical trust. Both models: horizontal/delegate and vertical/trustee exist within single POs.
conclusionsThe representation process within POs demands a balancing act between inclusion of affected persons and strategically aggregating a clear-cut political claim. Trust plays in that process of coming from individual wishes to collective and political standpoints a major role both in terms of horizontal as well as vertical trust. Horizontal trust serves the communication between affected members, and vertical trust allows representatives to be decisive.
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.