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]

Background: Vaccine hesitancy exists on a continuum ranging between complete adherence and complete refusal due to doubts or concerns within a heterogeneous group of individuals. Despite widespread acknowledgement of the contextual factors influencing attitudes and beliefs shaping COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, qualitative research with equity-deserving groups, accounting for unique lived experiences, remains a gap in the literature. We aim to identify and begin to understand and document the unique contextual factors shaping hesitancy by equity-deserving groups as it relates to relationships with government and health authorities. Methods: Participants were recruited and interviewed between Aug-Dec 2021. Semi-structured interviews using a convergent interviewing technique were conducted with individuals from the general population, as well as individuals who identify as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit, members of the LGBT2SQ + community, low-income Canadians, Black Canadians, and newcomers. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by a team of researchers. Memos were written following interviews and used to complement the thematic analysis of the interview data. Themes are presented in the results section. Results: The rationale for hesitancy among equity-deserving groups is consistent with literature documenting hesitancy in the general population. Contextual factors surrounding equity-deserving groups' attitudes and beliefs, however, are unique and relate to a history of oppression, discrimination, and genocide. We identified factors unique to subgroups; for example, religious or fatalistic beliefs among participant who identify as FNMI, fear associated with lack of testing and speed of vaccines' production among participants who identify as FNMI, Black, and LGBT2SQ + , distrust of the healthcare system for LGBT2SQ + and Black Canadians, and distrust of the government and opposition to vaccine mandates for participating who identify as LGBT2SQ + , low-income, FNMI, or Black Canadian. Newcomers stood out as very trusting of the government and accepting of COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions: While our data on vaccine hesitancy largely mirror concerns reported in the vast body of literature citing rationale for COVID-19 hesitancy in high-income countries, the contextual factors identified in our work point to the need for wider systemic change. Our results may be used to support efforts, beyond tailored promotion campaigns, to support the confident acceptance of vaccines for COVID-19 and the acceptance of novel vaccines as future infectious diseases emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Waiting times for hospital appointments, treatment and/or surgery have become a major political and health service problem, leading to national maximum waiting times and policies to reduce waiting times. Quantitative studies have documented waiting times for various types of surgery and longer waiting times in public vs private hospitals. However, very little qualitative research has explored patient experiences of waiting, how this compares between public and private hospitals, and the implications for trust in hospitals and healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to provide a deep understanding of the impact of waiting times on patient trust in public and private hospitals.Methods: A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Data collection occurred in 2012-13, and data were analysed using pre-coding, followed by conceptual and theoretical categorisation.Results: Participants differentiated between experiences of 'waiting for' (e.g. for specialist appointments and surgery) and 'waiting in' (e.g. in emergency departments and outpatient clinics) public and private hospitals. Whilst 'waiting for' public hospitals was longer than private hospitals, this was often justified and accepted by public patients (e.g. due to reduced government funding), therefore it did not lead to distrust of public hospitals. Private patients had shorter 'waiting for' hospital services, increasing their trust in private hospitals and distrust of public hospitals. Public patients also recounted many experiences of longer 'waiting in' public hospitals, leading to frustration and anxiety, although they rarely blamed or distrusted the doctors or nurses, instead blaming an underfunded system and over-worked staff. Doctors and nurses were seen to be doing their best, and therefore trustworthy.Conclusion: Although public patients experienced longer 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' public hospitals, it did not lead to widespread distrust in public hospitals or healthcare professionals. Private patients recounted largely positive stories of reduced 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' private hospitals, and generally distrusted public hospitals. The continuing trust by public patients in the face of negative experiences may be understood as a form of exchange trust norm, in which institutional trust is based on base-level expectations of consistency and minimum standards of care and safety. The institutional trust by private patients may be understood as a form of communal trust norm, whereby trust is based on the additional and higher-level expectations of flexibility, reduced waiting and more time with healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence suggests that there is a link between inequitable access to healthcare and inequitable distribution of illness. A recent World Health Organization report stated that there is a need for research and policy to address the critical role of health services in reducing inequities and preventing future inequities. The aim of this manuscript is to highlight disparities and differences in terms of the factors that distinguish between poor and good access to healthcare across six Asia-Pacific countries: Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. Methods: A population survey was undertaken in each country. This paper is a secondary analysis of these existing data. Data were collected in each country between 2009 and 2010. Four variables related to difficulties in access to healthcare (distance, appointment, waiting time, and cost) were analysed using binomial logistic regression to identify socio- and demographic predictors of inequity. Results: Consistent across the findings, poor health and low income were identified as difficulties in access. Country specific indicators were also identified. For Thailand, the poorest level of access appears to be for respondents who work within the household whereas in Taiwan, part-time work is associated with difficulties in access. Within Hong Kong, results suggest that older (above 60) and retired individuals have the poorest access and within Australia, females and married individuals are the worst off. Conclusion: Recognition of these inequities, from a policy perspective, is essential for health sector policy decision-making. Despite the differences in political and economic climate in the countries under analysis, our findings highlight patterns of inequity which require policy responses. Our data should be used as a means of deciding the most appropriate policy response for each country which includes, rather than excludes, socially marginalised population groups. These findings should be of interest to those involved in health policy, but also in policy more generally because as we have identified, access to health care is influenced by determinants outside of the health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]