Patients’ Positions on the Degree of Trust to be Placed in Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-physician relationship is ideally based on mutual trust. Trust usually takes times to build but can quite instantaneously be destroyed as a result of a single action or a single misperception. This study examined the way patients conceptualize the relationship between trust in a physician and perceived competency, honesty and openness, and personal involvement in care. One hundred sixty-seven patients aged 18-85 years were presented with a set of 27 three-item realistic vignettes that described situations in which participants could find themselves if hospitalized because of illness or accident. These scenarios resulted from the complete crossing of the three factors mentioned above. Participants were asked to assess the level of trust they would feel in each case. Through cluster analysis, three positions were found. For a minority of participants, trust was either unconditionally high (4%) or always quite low (8%). For a majority (75%), however, trust depended interactively on competency and honesty, on the one hand, and involvement, on the other hand; that is, the impact of competency and honesty on trust always depended on the level of involvement in care. In particular, when involvement had a low level, trust was always quite low, irrespective of the levels of both other factors. These findings are fully consistent with the view that, for a majority of patients, trust is inherently brittle: A breach in any one of participants' expectations regarding physicians' professionalism is enough to result in a more than proportional reduction in trust level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".