ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
The Development of a Scale Measuring Medical Mistrust Among Medical and Healthcare Students and Providers.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lack of medical trust among healthcare providers may result in delayed decision-making, repeated medical examinations, or increased medical errors. Hence, the study intends to develop and validate a medical mistrust scale (MMtS-MHC-SP) grounded in the Taiwanese cultural and healthcare context's perspective of healthcare students and providers to provide a reference framework for administrators and healthcare policymakers. Methods: Following an in-depth review of existing literature and expert consultations through panel discussions, the researchers utilized SPSS to conduct an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on data collected from a sample of 322 participants. This analytical process was designed to uncover the underlying factors of the MMtS-MHC-SP and to rigorously examine its psychometric soundness. To confirm the factor structure and validate the identified factor structure, the researchers subsequently performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS software on a separate sample of 233 individuals to assess the observed factor structure. Tests were also performed on goodness-of-fit indexes, convergent and discriminant validities, and internal consistency. Results: The EFA reduced the original 59 items to 31 items, grouped into five factors: provider trustworthiness (8 items), healthcare accessibility (6 items), institutional integrity (7 items), treatment justifiability (6 items), and system reliability (4 items). These five factors accounted for 41.578% of the total variance in responses. Subsequent CFA validated this five-factor, 31-item structure. The EFA and CFA models demonstrated adequate convergent and discriminant validities. The Cronbach's alphas, composite reliability values, and McDonald's ω Coefficients ranged from 0.853 to 0.982 across factors, indicating good internal consistency. Conclusion: The results validated the developed MMtS-MHC-SP as a valid tool for assessing the medical mistrust among medical and healthcare students and providers. Hence, it can serve as a valuable tool to guide educational interventions, policy-making, and administrative strategies to foster trust within healthcare systems.
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.