ArticlePloS one2021
Analyzing patient trust through the lens of hospitals managers-The other side of the coin.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Balancing the impact of socio-ethical and economic considerations on clinical-hospital decision-making.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- The effect of the arrangements law on patient mix in Israeli private healthcare.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Patient-centeredness-a cultural targeted survey among junior medical managers.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Patient preferences and choices as a reflection of trust-A cluster analysis comparing postsurgical perceptions in a private and a public hospital.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- A public value-based model to understand patients' adoption of eHealth: Theoretical underpinnings and empirical application.Digital healthArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust is an essential element in patient-physician relationships, yet trust is perceived differently among providers and customers exist. During January-February 2020 we examined the standpoints of medical managers and administrative directors from the private and public health hospitals on patient-physician trust, using a structured questionnaire. Thirty-six managers in public and private hospitals (24 from the public sector and 12 from the private sector) responded to the survey. Managers in the private sector rated trust higher in comparison to managers in the public sector, including trust related to patient satisfaction, professionalism and accountability. Managers from public hospitals gave higher scores to the need for patient education and shared responsibility prior to medical procedures. Administrative directors gave higher scores to various dimensions of trust and autonomy while medical managers gave higher scores to economic considerations. Trust is a fundamental component of the healthcare system and may be used to improve the provision and quality of care by analyzing standpoints and comparable continuous monitoring. Differences in position, education and training influence the perception of trust among managers in the health system. This survey may allow policy makers and opinion leaders to continue building and maintaining trust between patients and care providers.
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.