ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2018
Do patients know that physicians should be confidential? study on patients' awareness of privacy and confidentiality.
Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Improving the perception of respect for and the dignity of inpatients: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Breastfeeding as a Sacred Experience: An Exploratory Phenomenological Study of Muslim Mothers in Turkey Guided by Watson's Theory of Human Caring.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Knowledge attitude and practice of privacy protection in mobile phone use among psychiatric inpatients.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing Information Confidentiality in Telemedicine Platforms Using Public Web Data: A Case Study of Persian Televisit Websites.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2025Observational
- Personalized Healthcare: The Importance of Patients' Rights in Clinical Practice from the Perspective of Nursing Students in Poland, Spain and Slovakia-A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- Patient privacy and autonomy: a comparative analysis of cases of ethical dilemmas in China and the United States.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Privacy and confidentiality are among the inalienable rights of every human being that contribute to preservation of a sense of reverence and dignity. The present study was conducted to examine patients' awareness of their entitlement to these important rights. This cross-sectional study was conducted on 200 patients in Tehran, Iran during the year 2010. Collected data included patients' demographics (age, gender, marital status, place of residence, and educational level), type of hospital ward, frequency of hospitalization, duration of hospital stay, and patients' awareness of privacy and confidentiality. Two trained interviewers gathered the data using a self-made questionnaire, which was specifically designed to assess patients' awareness of privacy and confidentiality. Validity and reliability of the questionnaire were determined using content validity and Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha (a = 0.7), respectively. To analyze data, patients were assigned to three categories of poor (0 ≤ scores ≤ 3), moderate (4 ≤ scores ≤ 7) and good (8 ≤ scores ≤ 10) levels of awareness. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS software version 21. The results showed that 21% of the patients had poor, 72% moderate, and 7% good awareness of privacy and confidentiality, with a mean of 4.61 ± 1.63. In this study, 153 patients (76.5%) provided a correct definition of privacy, and 161 patients (80.5%) were aware of instances of privacy violation. In addition, a good level of awareness was found in 77 patients (38.5%) in terms of physician confidentiality, and in 158 patients (81.4%) regarding confidentiality of examination results and medical consultations. Our study results highlight the necessity to inform patients about the ethical and legal issues related to privacy and confidentiality, before or during admission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30258551PMC6150920What 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.