医学信任:医疗信任:医疗护理研究中信任度测量工具的范围综述》(Scoping Review of the Instruments Designed to Measure Trust in Medical Care Studies)。

Journal of caring sciences Pub Date : 2024-01-13 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.34172/jcs.33152
Ehsan Sarbazi, Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani, Zahra Sheikhalipour, Mostafa Farahbakhsh, Alireza Ala, Hassan Soleimanpour
{"title":"医学信任:医疗信任:医疗护理研究中信任度测量工具的范围综述》(Scoping Review of the Instruments Designed to Measure Trust in Medical Care Studies)。","authors":"Ehsan Sarbazi, Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani, Zahra Sheikhalipour, Mostafa Farahbakhsh, Alireza Ala, Hassan Soleimanpour","doi":"10.34172/jcs.33152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This scoping review study was conducted with the aim of identifying dimensions of trust in medical care, common trust subjects, and medical trust correlates among available instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a scoping review of literature through Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar engine, and various information sources of grey literature, to identify eligible studies up to 2023. We merely included psychometric studies in these areas. Non-psychometrics studies were excluded. Two assessors independently and carefully chose papers and abstracted records for qualitative exploration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-two studies (n=37228 participants) were included in the review. The majority of the participants 67 % (24943) were adults (≥18). One-dimensionality trust was found in 36 % (19) of trust in medical care studies, while multidimensionality was identified in 64 % (33) of the studies. Ten categories of trust in medicine correlates or associates were identified. In terms of trust scales subjects, about 71 % (37) of the scales measured trust in healthcare professions, 14 % (7) health care systems, and the rest were about emergency department, trauma care emergency department, health care team, technology, authorities, telemedicine, insurer, COVID-19 prevention policies, performance, and general trust.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Various tools have been developed and validated in the field of trust in healthcare, and several domains have been identified. Trust in medicine is correlated by a variety of factors such as patient characteristics, healthcare provider factors, healthcare organization features, health conditions, and social influences. It is suggested that researchers pay more attention to the most commonly known dimensions in preparing tools.</p>","PeriodicalId":516530,"journal":{"name":"Journal of caring sciences","volume":"13 2","pages":"116-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417298/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trust in Medicine: A Scoping Review of the Instruments Designed to Measure Trust in Medical Care Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Ehsan Sarbazi, Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani, Zahra Sheikhalipour, Mostafa Farahbakhsh, Alireza Ala, Hassan Soleimanpour\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/jcs.33152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This scoping review study was conducted with the aim of identifying dimensions of trust in medical care, common trust subjects, and medical trust correlates among available instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a scoping review of literature through Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar engine, and various information sources of grey literature, to identify eligible studies up to 2023. We merely included psychometric studies in these areas. Non-psychometrics studies were excluded. Two assessors independently and carefully chose papers and abstracted records for qualitative exploration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-two studies (n=37228 participants) were included in the review. The majority of the participants 67 % (24943) were adults (≥18). One-dimensionality trust was found in 36 % (19) of trust in medical care studies, while multidimensionality was identified in 64 % (33) of the studies. Ten categories of trust in medicine correlates or associates were identified. In terms of trust scales subjects, about 71 % (37) of the scales measured trust in healthcare professions, 14 % (7) health care systems, and the rest were about emergency department, trauma care emergency department, health care team, technology, authorities, telemedicine, insurer, COVID-19 prevention policies, performance, and general trust.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Various tools have been developed and validated in the field of trust in healthcare, and several domains have been identified. Trust in medicine is correlated by a variety of factors such as patient characteristics, healthcare provider factors, healthcare organization features, health conditions, and social influences. It is suggested that researchers pay more attention to the most commonly known dimensions in preparing tools.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":516530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of caring sciences\",\"volume\":\"13 2\",\"pages\":\"116-137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417298/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of caring sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.33152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of caring sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcs.33152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介本范围综述研究旨在确定医疗信任的维度、常见信任主体以及现有工具中的医疗信任相关因素:我们通过 Medline、EMBASE、Scopus、谷歌学术引擎和各种灰色文献信息来源对文献进行了范围界定,以确定截至 2023 年符合条件的研究。我们仅纳入了这些领域的心理测量研究。非心理测量学研究被排除在外。两名评估员独立、仔细地选择论文和摘要记录,进行定性探索:52 项研究(n=37228 名参与者)被纳入审查范围。大多数参与者为成年人(≥18 岁),占 67%(24943 人)。36%(19 项)的医疗信任研究发现了单维度信任,64%(33 项)的研究发现了多维度信任。研究发现了十类与医疗信任相关或关联的因素。就信任量表的主题而言,约 71 %(37 个)的量表测量了对医疗保健专业的信任,14 %(7 个)测量了对医疗保健系统的信任,其余的量表测量了对急诊科、创伤护理急诊科、医疗保健团队、技术、当局、远程医疗、保险公司、COVID-19 预防政策、绩效和一般信任的信任:结论:在医疗信任领域已开发并验证了多种工具,并确定了多个领域。医疗信任与多种因素相关,如患者特征、医疗服务提供者因素、医疗机构特征、健康状况和社会影响。建议研究人员在准备工具时多关注最常见的维度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trust in Medicine: A Scoping Review of the Instruments Designed to Measure Trust in Medical Care Studies.

Introduction: This scoping review study was conducted with the aim of identifying dimensions of trust in medical care, common trust subjects, and medical trust correlates among available instruments.

Methods: We carried out a scoping review of literature through Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar engine, and various information sources of grey literature, to identify eligible studies up to 2023. We merely included psychometric studies in these areas. Non-psychometrics studies were excluded. Two assessors independently and carefully chose papers and abstracted records for qualitative exploration.

Results: Fifty-two studies (n=37228 participants) were included in the review. The majority of the participants 67 % (24943) were adults (≥18). One-dimensionality trust was found in 36 % (19) of trust in medical care studies, while multidimensionality was identified in 64 % (33) of the studies. Ten categories of trust in medicine correlates or associates were identified. In terms of trust scales subjects, about 71 % (37) of the scales measured trust in healthcare professions, 14 % (7) health care systems, and the rest were about emergency department, trauma care emergency department, health care team, technology, authorities, telemedicine, insurer, COVID-19 prevention policies, performance, and general trust.

Conclusion: Various tools have been developed and validated in the field of trust in healthcare, and several domains have been identified. Trust in medicine is correlated by a variety of factors such as patient characteristics, healthcare provider factors, healthcare organization features, health conditions, and social influences. It is suggested that researchers pay more attention to the most commonly known dimensions in preparing tools.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信