Search

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has reignited a commitment from the health policy and health services research communities to rebuilding trust in healthcare and created a renewed appetite for measures of trust for system monitoring and evaluation. The aim of the present paper was to develop a multidimensional measure of trust in healthcare that: (1) Is responsive to the conceptual and methodological limitations of existing measures; (2) Can be used to identify systemic explanations for lower levels of trust in equity-deserving populations; (3) Can be used to design and evaluate interventions aiming to (re)build trust. Methods: We conducted a 2021 review of existing measures of trust in healthcare, 72 qualitative interviews (Aug-Dec 2021; oversampling for equity-deserving populations), an expert review consensus process (Oct 2021), and factor analyses and validation testing based on two waves of survey data (Nov 2021, n = 694; Jan-Feb 2022, n = 740 respectively). Findings: We present the Trust in Multidimensional Healthcare Systems Scale (TIMHSS); a 38-item correlated three-factor measure of trust in doctors, policies, and the system. Measurement of invariance tests suggest that the TIMHSS can also be reliably administered to diverse populations. Conclusions: This global measure of trust in healthcare can be used to measure trust over time at a population level, or used within specific subpopulations, to inform interventions to (re)build trust. It can also be used within a clinical setting to provide a stronger evidence base for associations between trust and therapeutic outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION Although population medicine is a cornerstone in preventing and controlling diseases, worldwide shortages of specialists in this field continue to rise. The aim of this study is to explore physicians' (primary and secondary healthcare) perceptions on pursuing population medicine as a main career. METHODS Responses were obtained via an online selfadministered questionnaire from Arabian Gulf University medical graduates, during the period February-April 2022, who had valid email addresses on the Alumni Association database. Information included demographic data, physicians' employment health sector and medical career choices. In addition, perceptions towards pursuing a career in population medicine were documented. RESULTS Completed questionnaires were received from 190 physicians, of whom 24.7% and 63.2% were in primary and secondary healthcare, respectively. While most of the physicians did not consider specializing in population medicine upon their undergraduate graduation (81%), those who ended specializing in primary healthcare (53.2%) were significantly more likely than their counterparts in secondary healthcare (17.5%) to consider pursuing a career in population medicine if they were to get the opportunity now (p<0.001). Further, 69.5% of physicians felt that there is a need to integrate training in population medicine as part of the clinical rotations. CONCLUSIONS While physicians' attitudes towards population medicine remain unfavorable, primary healthcare physicians are more likely to pursue a career in this field. It would be worthwhile to incorporate population medicine within doctors' clinical training. Further, preventive medicine and health promotion activities should be part of the undergraduate medical curricula as well as residency training programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization , some state governments have imposed stringent restrictions on abortion, whereas others have sought to protect access. In this policy brief, the American College of Physicians updates its previous positions to reflect this new reality and offers recommendations to promote equitable access to reproductive health care services and safeguard maternal health. The legal landscape around access to reproductive health care services was substantially altered after the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. In the aftermath of the decision, some state governments have begun to impose stringent restrictions and complete bans on the provision of abortion, whereas others have sought to protect and expand access. Some have gone as far as imposing criminal and civil penalties on physicians and other clinicians who provide evidence-based, clinically indicated reproductive health care services and information that is guided by biomedical ethics and provided in the best interest of the patient's health and well-being. In several states, lawmakers have attempted and successfully used new approaches to enforcing and achieving these prohibitions, including prohibitions on crossing state lines to obtain abortion care, prohibitions on the mailing of medication abortion, and the authorization of third-party civil lawsuits. In this policy brief, the American College of Physicians (ACP) updates and expands on its previous public policy positions on abortion from its 2018 policy paper, "Women's Health Policy in the United States," to reflect this new reality. The College also offers policymakers and payers recommendations to promote equitable access to reproductive health care services and safeguard maternal health. ACP reaffirms its opposition to undue and unnecessary governmental interference in the patient–physician relationship that criminalizes the provision of health care made in the physician's clinical judgment and based on clinical evidence and the standard of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]