Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Apr 3:10:133-144.
doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S125885. eCollection 2017.

First, do no harm: institutional betrayal and trust in health care organizations

Carly Parnitzke Smith  1
Affiliations

First, do no harm: institutional betrayal and trust in health care organizations

Carly Parnitzke Smith. J Multidiscip Healthc. .

Abstract

Purpose: Patients' trust in health care is increasingly recognized as important to quality care, yet questions remain about what types of health care experiences erode trust. The current study assessed the prevalence and impact of institutional betrayal on patients' trust and engagement in health care.

Participants and methods: Participants who had sought health care in the US in October 2013 were recruited from an online marketplace, Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Participants (n = 707; 73% Caucasian; 56.8% female; 9.8% lesbian, gay, or bisexual; median age between 18 and 35 years) responded to survey questions about health care use, trust in health care providers and organizations, negative medical experiences, and institutional betrayal.

Results: Institutional betrayal was reported by two-thirds of the participants and predicted disengagement from health care (r = 0.36, p < 0.001). Mediational models (tested using bootstrapping analyses) indicated a negative, nonzero pathway between institutional betrayal and trust in health care organizations (b = -0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [-0.07, -0.02]), controlling for trust in physicians and hospitalization history. These negative effects were not buffered by trust in one's own physician, but in fact patients who trusted their physician more reported lower trust in health care organizations following negative medical events (interaction b = -0.02, 95%CI = [-0.03, -0.01]).

Conclusion: Clinical implications are discussed, concluding that institutional betrayal decreases patient trust and engagement in health care.

Keywords: USA; adherence; cross-sectional; engagement; healthcare systems; self-report; social science.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The author reports no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Effect of negative medical experiences on trust in health care organizations moderated by trust in physician and mediated by institutional betrayal. Note: Bolded coefficients indicate nonzero indirect effects of negative medical experiences on trust health care organizations. Covariates of the mediator and outcome in this model are hospitalization history. Refer Table 4 for further statistics for each pathway and description of coefficients. *p < 0.01; **p < 0.001.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Smith SP. First, Do No Harm: Institutional Betrayal in Healthcare [dissertation] Eugene, OR: University of Oregon; 2016.
    1. Peabody FW. The care of the patient. J Am Med Assoc. 1927;88(12):877–882.
    1. Altice FL, Mostashari F, Friedland GH. Trust and the acceptance of and adherence to antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001;28(1):47–58. - PubMed
    1. Mollborn S, Stepanikova I, Cook KS. Delayed care and unmet needs among health care system users: when does fiduciary trust in a physician matter? Health Serv Res. 2005;40(6 Pt 1):1898–1917. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tidkikis F, Strasen L. Patient-focused care units improve service and financial outcomes. Healthc Financial Manag. 1994;48(9):38. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources