Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38758829›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Measuring trust in one's physician: A scoping review.

Linda R Weber

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Constructing a Conceptual Model for Measuring Physician-Patient Trust: Integrating Theory and Research.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Linda R WeberDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, Utica, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0005-7221-6112

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Physician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansTrustHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38758829
PMCPMC11101118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.