ArticlePloS one2024
Measuring trust in one's physician: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synthetic Content Validation of Pediatric Trust Instruments Using Persona-Driven Large Language Models: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Measuring Physician Trust: An In-Depth Psychometric Analysis of the Trust in Physicians Scale Considering Social Desirability.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2026Article
- Article
- A Matter of Trust: Building and Validating the Dental Hygienist Trust Scale.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Constructing a Conceptual Model for Measuring Physician-Patient Trust: Integrating Theory and Research.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Facilitators of and barriers to high-quality care at end-of-life: experiences of terminally ill patients and their relatives.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Public distrust in physicians and healthcare utilization: a nationwide study in China.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- An Exploration of Medical Mistrust, Trust, Perceived Discrimination and Associated Factors among Urban Arab and African American Emerging Adults.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Beyond the algorithm: rethinking the network account of trustworthy ai through lexical threshold-based multidimensional utility analysis.AI & society · 2026Article
- Choice of oncologist and influencing factors: analysis of the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network registry.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Accountability, autonomy, equity, and trust in selected healthcare systems: a comparative analysis.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- Social media as a source of information for patients with knee osteoarthritis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust in one's physician drives positive health practices. However, the conceptualization and subsequent operationalization of trust have become clouded due to the multitude of approaches that have resulted in several different measures with varied dimensions and indicators. The objectives of this scoping review were: 1) to discover any new developments in the measurement of trust, 2) to identify those measures of trust, whether newly created or refined in the last ten years, that have known reliability and validity, and 3) to compare those instruments' conceptualizations, dimensions, and indicators. This researcher conducted an electronic search of three databases (PubMed, SOCAB, and PsycINFO). Two reviewers screened those selected studies and identified the following six key measurement tools, of which three had shorter, more abbreviated derivatives: the Trust in Physician Scale and its modification, the Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale and its short form, the Health Care Relationship Trust Scale and its refinement, the Trust in Oncologist Scale and its shortened form, the Trust in Health Care Providers Scale, and the Trust in My Doctor Scale. Of these six distinct tools, only the Trust in Oncologist Scale was developed and validated in non-US populations. Also identified were ten dimensions of trust: fidelity, technical competence, communicative competence, interpersonal competence (i.e., caring), honesty, confidentiality, global, behavioral, fairness, and system trust/accountability. Interpersonal competence and fairness emerged as newer dimensions that deserve further study. A comparative analysis of the indicators of these trust dimensions revealed some discrepancies that deserve theoretical and psychometric attention. In addition, incorporating item-response theory to assess measurement invariance has enhanced the assessment of external validity. This review provides a resource for researchers that will lead to a more uniform understanding of trust, thereby setting the basis for future theoretical integration and measurement development.
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.