A systematic review of medical mistrust measures

Williamson, Lillie D.; Bigman, Cabral A.

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.05.007

Cited by 108 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While our study supports the findings of Williams and Bigman's systematic review 19 (e.g., GBMMS 2 and the MMI 12 are the two most commonly used measures of MM), we move the previous research a step further, by including qualitative studies in our review and focusing on a wider range of outcomes. Using the Williams and Mohammed framework as a guide, we were able to identify potential direct or indirect associations between basic causes and MM and consider MM as part of proximal pathways that influence behavioral responses and health outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…15,18 MM may also be a protective response, operating in the form of caution, skepticism, or self-preservation (i.e., a healthy cultural "paranoia") due to the exposure to basic causes (e.g., discrimination, stigma) within and outside the health care system. 16 A recent review 19 of quantitative studies found that most studies of MM focused on a mixed race/ethnic or predominantly African American/Black sample within the context of cancer care/screening, general or HIV care in the United States. While not noted in the review, most studies focused on health care-related outcomes, such as antiretroviral treatment adherence or colon cancer screening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ubiquitous Yet Unclear: A Systematic Review of Medical Mistrust

Benkert

Cuevas

Thompson

et al. 2019

Behavioral Medicine

149

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer-reviewed articles (n = 124) examining associations between medical mistrust (MM) and health outcomes from four databases, between January 1998 and May 2018, were reviewed; 36 qualitative and 88 quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. The Williams and Mohammed framework guided our narrative synthesis of the studies; it argues that basic causes (e.g., biased institutions) affect the social status of marginalized groups which in turn effects multiple proximal pathways leading to responses and poor health. Most studies were cross-sectional with US-based samples. The MM in qualitative studies were categorized as interpersonal (n = 30), systemic (n = 22), and/or vicarious (n = 18); 25% did not explicitly note the basic causes of MM and race/ ethnicity was often confounded with socioeconomic status (SES). All but three studies discussed an association between MM and a behavior response; no study focused on an actual health outcome. Most quantitative studies used multivariate regression analyses; only 15 of the 88 utilized advanced modeling techniques (e.g., mediation). Most (75%) studies did not describe basic causes for MM and 43% utilized low income samples. MM was conceptualized as a predictor/proximal pathway (in 73 studies) associated with a variety of responses, most commonly behavioral (e.g., diminished adherence); 14 studies found an association between MM and a specific health measure. This review underscores the need for future qualitative studies to place MM central to their research questions as in-depth descriptions of MM were limited. Future quantitative studies should replicate findings using more advanced analytical strategies that examine the relationship between MM and health outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ubiquitous Yet Unclear: A Systematic Review of Medical Mistrust

Benkert

Cuevas

Thompson

et al. 2019

Behavioral Medicine

149

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Andreson et al (2004) suggested sampling and recruitment techniques for populations that experience health inequities and are hard to reach with traditional techniques (e.g., periodic population-based surveys, Integrated Disease Surveillance and Response). [90] It may also be helpful to incorporate mixed methods assessment of multiple levels to "illuminate plausible causal mechanisms." [63] 6.…”

Section: Select Research and Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Practical Guide to Incorporating Health Equity Domains in Implementation Frameworks

Woodward

Singh

Ndebele-Ngwenya

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Due to limited systematic integration of health equity and implementation science, it is imperative to provide researchers and practitioners tools to guide implementation in settings where there is inequitable implementation of an intervention. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation science framework with health equity determinants to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We suggested how others’ might adapt their preferred implementation science frameworks with three health equity domains: 1) cultural factors of recipients, 2) clinical encounter, or patient-provider interaction, and 3) societal influences (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This manuscript is a practical guide to utilize three health equity domains in implementation research and practice.Methods: We describe in greater depth than in our previous publication domains typical in implementation determinants frameworks and three adaptations: domains known to affect health equity. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, defined relevant subdomains, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample measures, both quantitative and qualitative.Results: We describe how to incorporate the three health equity domains in one’s preferred implementation science framework, or how to use the Health Equity Implementation Framework specifically. Practical guidelines follow ten published recommendations on how to use frameworks in implementation research and practice. We describe a new case study in which the framework guided evaluation.Conclusions: Incorporating health equity domains within implementation frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally, addressing, implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. The practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation scientists and practitioners to concretely address inequity in implementation across populations to capture and analyze information used to assess health outcomes.Contributions to the LiteratureSpecific definitions of implementation and three health equity domains with examples of how they have been applied in published literature and sample measures.Practical tools, including a qualitative interview guide and codebookCase study of how the Health Equity Implementation Framework guided analysis in an implementation study

show abstract

“…Medical mistrust has a well‐documented harmful impact on a range of patients’ health behaviors and outcomes 1 . It can have such egregious downstream effects on so many aspects of medicine—from clinical trial participation to health care use, timely screening, organ donation, and treatment adherence—that it is sometimes described as one of the social determinants of health 2 .…”

Section: Other Voicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust in American Medicine: A Call to Action for Health Care Professionals

Mohottige¹,

Boulware²

2020

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical mistrust has a well‐documented harmful impact on a range of patients’ health behaviors and outcomes. It can have such egregious downstream effects on so many aspects of medicine—from clinical trial participation to health care use, timely screening, organ donation, and treatment adherence—that it is sometimes described as one of the social determinants of health. In the article “Trust, Risk, and Race in American Medicine,” Laura Specker Sullivan makes the compelling case that trust is essential to building a therapeutic alliance in which effective, high‐quality health care can be delivered and received. As a complement to her suggestion that health care providers take an active role in mitigating mistrust by demonstrating “not only their capacity to be honest and forthright but also their ability to respond to the potential truster's needs,” we recommend that key health care professionals commit to five actions.

show abstract

A systematic review of medical mistrust measures

Cited by 108 publications

References 33 publications

Ubiquitous Yet Unclear: A Systematic Review of Medical Mistrust

Ubiquitous Yet Unclear: A Systematic Review of Medical Mistrust

A Practical Guide to Incorporating Health Equity Domains in Implementation Frameworks

Trust in American Medicine: A Call to Action for Health Care Professionals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About