ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Exploring patients' perspectives on patient rights in Latvia: from awareness to implementation and strengthening.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementation of patient rights plays a crucial role in ensuring the quality of healthcare systems by establishing health care practices prioritising human dignity, autonomy, individual and public benefit, patient safety and justice.
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate potential gaps in the implementation of patient rights in Latvia from patients’ perspective across four contexts: visits to family physicians, visits to specialist physicians, hospital stays, and use of the e-health system.
methodsA questionnaire was developed by the authors. The first part of the questionnaire explored patients’ experience of implementing patient rights during visits to family physician, specialist physicians and hospital stays. The second part included questions on respondents’ knowledge and experience of using the e-health system. The survey was conducted in 2024 and enrolled a representative sample of 1133 respondents.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences in experience of implementation of patient rights during visits to family physicians and specialist physicians in almost all survey statements. In most cases, these differences were in favour of the specialist physician indicating a more positive experience. Implementation of patient rights during visits to specialist physicians was more positively evaluated also in comparison to the hospital environment. Most respondents were unaware of the e-health system's opportunities to express their wishes and consent or dissent to particular actions in healthcare, with only a small percentage using it for this purpose. The main reasons for not using the system included a lack of willingness, perceived importance, and digital skills, with significant differences observed based on gender, age, education, ethnicity, and income.
conclusionPatients in Latvia report more positive experiences with the implementation of their rights in outpatient care, especially with specialist physicians, and less favourable experiences during hospital stays. Limited awareness of e-health system functionalities that support implementation of patient rights highlights the need for targeted educational initiatives.
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.