A qualitative study of patient (dis)trust in public and private hospitals: the importance of choice and pragmatic acceptance for trust considerations in South Australia

Abstract

BackgroundThis paper explores the nature and reasoning for (dis)trust in Australian public and private hospitals. Patient trust increases uptake of, engagement with and optimal outcomes from healthcare services and is therefore central to health practice, policy and planning.MethodsA qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals).Results‘Private patients’ made active choices about both their hospital and doctor, playing the role of the ‘consumer’, where trust and choice went hand in hand. The reputation of the doctor and hospital were key drivers of trust, under the assumption that a better reputation equates with higher quality care. However, making a choice to trust a doctor led to personal responsibility and the additional requirement for self-trust. ‘Public patients’ described having no choice in their hospital or doctor. They recognised ‘problems’ in the public healthcare system but accepted and even excused these as ‘part of the system’. In order to justify their trust, they argued that doctors in public hospitals tried to do their best in difficult circumstances, thereby deserving of trust. This ‘resigned trust’ may stem from a lack of alternatives for free health care and thus a dependence on the system.ConclusionThese two contrasting models of trust within the same locality point to the way different configurations of healthcare systems, hospital experiences, insurance coverage and related forms of ‘choice’ combine to shape different formats of trust, as patients act to manage their vulnerability within these contexts.

Iranian public trust in health services: evidence from Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran

“…This might be a result of the high cost of a visit to a doctor, long waiting times or absence of insurance coverage, and could be the reason why a high level of trust is placed in pharmacy doctors. A qualitative study in South Australia concluded that patients had the same level of trust in public and private hospitals (21). Similarly, our study revealed the same trust in private and public hospitals.…”

Services Marketing and Medical Tourism: The Impact on Private Health Services in Bangkok

“…A pilot study was carried out with three (3) randomly chosen respondents from the population and excluded from the main interview process (Maxwell, 2013) that endorsed changes to language and the logic of questions to respondents (Kim, 2011) and streamlined the question arrangements (James & James, 2011). Eleven (11) respondents were interviewed, which were conducted in English and took approximately one hour each (Ward, et al, 2015;Sbaraini et al, 2011), audio-recorded with permission (Duranti, 2007) and interviewed using an identical set of prepared open questions (Gray & Wilcox, 1995;James, 2014;Kvale, 1996). These questions were, supplemented using speculative probing questions (Balshem, 1991;Punch, 2014;Meurer, et al, 2007).…”

A stitch in time saves nine: Perceptions about colorectal cancer screening after a non-cancer colonoscopy result. Qualitative study

“…Trust is essential for medical practice (39)(40)(41). It requires a 'leap of faith' under conditions of uncertainty, it is rooted in past experiences about trusting relationships with good outcomes, and it involves positive, flexible expectations of othe pa ties (pe so s' or systems') intentions or actions.…”