Search

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]

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]

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted and exacerbated inequities in health for structurally marginalised Canadians. Their location on society's hierarchies constrained their ability to access healthcare and follow recommended health behaviours. The aim of this article is to identify, from the perspective of marginalised populations, factors influencing the acceptance or rejection of COVID-19 countermeasures by structurally marginalised Canadians. Interviews were conducted with Canadians 18 + who identified as Black (n = 8), First Nations, Métis, or Inuit (n = 7) and low-income (<40,000 annual household income) (n = 8) between August and December 2021. Measures were said to impact well-being and interfere with revenue generating activities. Longstanding unfavourable living and environmental conditions as they relate to structural marginalisation was said to fuel anger toward the government and lead to a greater reluctance to accept countermeasures. Participants described concerns about government decisions being made without considering their unique contexts, or knowledge of the experiences of the population for whom these decisions were being made. Effective proactive action from government is important to foster trust with marginalised populations to support acceptance of health information and address growing inequities. Action that demonstrates government competence and commitment to the interests of marginalised populations is critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]