Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleMethodology

Physician Trust in the Patient: Development and Validation of a New Measure

David H. Thom, Sabrina T. Wong, David Guzman, Amery Wu, Joanne Penko, Christine Miaskowski and Margot Kushel
The Annals of Family Medicine March 2011, 9 (2) 148-154; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1224
David H. Thom
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dthom@fcm.ucsf.edu
Sabrina T. Wong
RN(c), PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Guzman
MSPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amery Wu
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joanne Penko
MS, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christine Miaskowski
RN, PhD, FAAN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Margot Kushel
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Author reply to Dr. Gruman's comments
    David Thom
    Published on: 30 March 2011
  • Author's response
    David H. Thom
    Published on: 25 March 2011
  • Physician Trust in Patients: An Important Methodological Contribution
    Irena Stepanikova
    Published on: 25 March 2011
  • Does my clinician trust me? Depends....
    Jessie Gruman
    Published on: 25 March 2011
  • A valuable tool that opens up possibilities for future research
    Carolyn Tarrant
    Published on: 23 March 2011
  • Investigating Some Further Consequences of Physician Trust in Patients Using the New Thom et al. Physician Scale: A Commentary
    Roderick M Kramer
    Published on: 21 March 2011
  • Physician Trust in Patient Measure
    Stephen J Zyzanski
    Published on: 18 March 2011
  • Published on: (30 March 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Author reply to Dr. Gruman's comments
    Author reply to Dr. Gruman's comments
    • David Thom, San Francisco, CA

    Your comments are much appreciated. As you illustrate on the blog site you reference, establishing a relationship of mutual trust when there are large differences in roles and experience can be challenging, requiring mutual respect, clear communication, and time (often in short supply). While some of the items in our scale fit well with the concept of the prepared patient (e.g., "let you know when there has been a major...

    Show More

    Your comments are much appreciated. As you illustrate on the blog site you reference, establishing a relationship of mutual trust when there are large differences in roles and experience can be challenging, requiring mutual respect, clear communication, and time (often in short supply). While some of the items in our scale fit well with the concept of the prepared patient (e.g., "let you know when there has been a major change in his or her condition?" and "be actively involved in managing his/her condition/problem?", other items may be at odds, as you point out. This is, I think, a fair approximation of the reality of the patient- clinician relationship and why the 'activated patient' is often recieved by clinicians with some ambivalence. Just as a understanding more about the basis for patients' trust in clinicians (1-3) can help clinicians establish better relationships with their patients, a measure of the clinician's trust in patients may be useful improving patients' relationships with their doctors.

    Of course a dozen items cannot capture the complexity of any given relationship, but if it is a reasonable approximation it can be used to test models of the relationship and interventions aimed at improving reltionships between patients and their doctors. The question you raise, "Is our engagement in our care a source of our clinicians’ distrust?" is an excellent one that would benefit from such study.

    References

    1. Thom DH, Campbell, B. Patient-physician trust: an exploratory study. Journal of Family Practice 1997;44:169-76.
    2. Thom DH, Ribisl KM, Stewart AL, Luke DA. Validation of a measure of patients' trust in their physician: the Trust in Physician Scale. Medical Care 1999;37:510-7.
    3. Thom DH. Physician behaviors that predict patient trust. Journal of Family Practice 2001;50:323-8

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (25 March 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Author's response
    Author's response
    • David H. Thom, San Francisco, USA

    I appreciate the comments from Drs. Tarrant, Kramer and Stepanikova. The space limitations of the article did not allow me to do more than briefly mention the contributions of these investigators, and several others, to understanding the antecedents, consequences and processes of mutual trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Interested readers would do well to access their publications related to this topic.

    ...

    Show More

    I appreciate the comments from Drs. Tarrant, Kramer and Stepanikova. The space limitations of the article did not allow me to do more than briefly mention the contributions of these investigators, and several others, to understanding the antecedents, consequences and processes of mutual trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Interested readers would do well to access their publications related to this topic.

    Mutual trust is an extremely rich construct for examining the patient -provider relationship, particularly, though not exclusively, in primary care. The importance of understanding the nature, and value, of this relationship is especially important in light of recent and impending changes in models of health care delivery as there is a risk that what is not measured or understood may be damaged or lost. I appreciate the Annals of Family Medicine providing an opportunity to advance our work in this area.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (25 March 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Physician Trust in Patients: An Important Methodological Contribution
    Physician Trust in Patients: An Important Methodological Contribution
    • Irena Stepanikova, Columbia, SC

    By developing a scale for measuring physician trust in a patient, Dr. David Thom and his colleagues make a much needed methodological contribution. The emphasis on the patient side of the health care process evident in health care research during recent decades has necessarily limited our attention to physician-level factors. Yet, physicians still are (and likely will always be) important clinical decision makers. Phy...

    Show More

    By developing a scale for measuring physician trust in a patient, Dr. David Thom and his colleagues make a much needed methodological contribution. The emphasis on the patient side of the health care process evident in health care research during recent decades has necessarily limited our attention to physician-level factors. Yet, physicians still are (and likely will always be) important clinical decision makers. Physicians are human, and like for all humans, their decision-making is influenced by a complex array of factors, some clinical and some non-clinical. Trust in a patient is likely to be one prominent factor shaping both clinical decisions and the interpersonal care delivered to patients (both of which, in turn, contribute to patient evaluations of care).

    The idea of the importance of physicians’ trust in a patient is not new -- see, for instance, a discussion by Cook et al. (1) -- but without a valid measure, we have not had the tools to empirically document its role in the clinical process. I am confident that Thom’s new measure will encourage research activity in this area. This research is needed to help us understand which factors shape physicians’ perceptions of patients and how these perceptions influence the care that patients receive. Such better understanding can help to develop practical tools and policies to improve the physicians’ ability to deliver clinically appropriate, high-quality care equitably to all patients.

    (1) Cook K, Kramer R, Thom D, Stepanikova I, Bailey S, Cooper R. Trust and distrust in patient-physician relationships: perceived determinants of high and low trust relationships in managed care settings. In: Kramer R, Cook KS, eds. Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Russell Sage Foundation; 2004:65-98.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (25 March 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Does my clinician trust me? Depends....
    Does my clinician trust me? Depends....
    • Jessie Gruman, Washington, DC
    This is a beautifully constructed scale intended to address an aspect of the complex relationship between patients and clinicians that is rarely addressed and even more rarely measured. As a person who spends a lot of time as a patient (particularly now as I recover from stomach cancer) – and more time thinking and writing generally about the patient experience, this article sparked a couple of responses. First, it r...
    Show More
    This is a beautifully constructed scale intended to address an aspect of the complex relationship between patients and clinicians that is rarely addressed and even more rarely measured. As a person who spends a lot of time as a patient (particularly now as I recover from stomach cancer) – and more time thinking and writing generally about the patient experience, this article sparked a couple of responses. First, it reminds me of how much we depend on the abilities of those who care for us to track our emotional and cognitive states as we move in and out of illness. Today I may be alert and feisty, while next week I may be dragged down by my symptoms, unable to remember or report accurately on how I’m doing – or whether I am managing to eat, drink and take my pills as directed. Does my clinician’s trust in me vary with the ebb and flow of my health? What assumptions are the authors making about the stability of the construct “trust” as they have operationalized it? Second, it reminds me of just how inexperienced many of us patients are in actually engaging in our care – and also, how unprepared many clinicians are to care for “engaged” patients. (See (1) for my recent comments on this challenge). It is easy to imagine an “empowered” patient unintentionally acting in ways that would lead her clinician to answer in ways that indicate deep distrust to questions 7 (accept your medical judgment), 8 (believe what you say), 9 (follow the treatment plan you recommend), 10 (ask appropriate questions), 14 (respect your time), and 16 (not make unreasonable demands). Indeed, findings from the Foundation for Informed decision Making DECISION (2) study suggests that the majority of primary care physicians probably lean in this direction. Is our engagement in our care a source of our clinicians’ distrust? If so, this doesn’t bode well for being able to forge successful partnerships over time. “Trust” is clearly a many-splendored thing – and a difficult idea to quantify. I’m not sure the authors have quite got a handle on it in this scale. But I definitely think this is a topic worth pursuing. References (1) http://blog.preparedpatientforum.org/blog/2011/03/the-true-grit-tiness-of-sharing-health-care-decisions-with-our-doctors/ (2) http://www.informedmedicaldecisions.org/pdfs/CouperForumSummary.pdf

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (23 March 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for A valuable tool that opens up possibilities for future research
    A valuable tool that opens up possibilities for future research
    • Carolyn Tarrant, Leicester, UK

    Thom et al are to be commended for their work to develop a measure of physician trust in patients. The doctor-patient relationship is a reciprocal, two-way relationship; if we only study patient trust in physicians, we are missing part of the picture.

    The authors argue that physician trust is important, and this should not be understated. Physician trust can impact on quality of care and patient outcomes. GPs...

    Show More

    Thom et al are to be commended for their work to develop a measure of physician trust in patients. The doctor-patient relationship is a reciprocal, two-way relationship; if we only study patient trust in physicians, we are missing part of the picture.

    The authors argue that physician trust is important, and this should not be understated. Physician trust can impact on quality of care and patient outcomes. GPs may be unwilling to invest time and effort in patients they do not trust, and patients are sensitive to cues that indicate they are not trusted by their doctor. Lack of mutual trust can be a barrier to developing a good relationship and working together to achieve optimum outcomes. Certain patient groups (such as homeless patients) may be more vulnerable to lack of trust from health care providers (1), and may be deterred from seeking essential healthcare as a result. An insight into levels of trust between patients and GPs may help in addressing such problems.

    Evidence shows that continuity of care is associated with higher patient trust in their physician (2), and we now have the opportunity to explore whether this is also the case for physician trust in patients. In my qualitative work in the UK (3), GPs tended to feel they could trust patients more, and were more willing to invest in their care, as they got to know them better. They also felt that establishing continuity of care could help to build mutual trust, making it possible to engage the cooperation of initially ‘untrustworthy’ patients. It may also be the case that continuity of care allows physicians to become more discerning in their willingness to trust individual patients, enabling them to act appropriately – to know, for example, which patients can be trusted to self-manage their own care, or to legitimately request sick notes, and which patients might need more careful monitoring, questioning, or explicit contracts to engage their cooperation.

    Further research into the relationship between processes of care, and mutual trust and cooperation, would greatly enhance our understanding of the dynamics of doctor-patient relationship, and help establish more soundly the role of continuity in the delivery of good quality primary care. If Thom et al’s measure can be shown to be generalisable to other populations, it will be a valuable tool for future research.

    1. Lester H, Bradley CP (2001) Barriers to primary healthcare for the homeless: the general practitioner’s perspective. European Journal of General Practice, 7, 6-12.

    2. Mainous III AG, et al (2001) Continuity of care and trust in one’s physician: evidence from primary care in the United States and the United Kingdom. Fam Med, 33(1):22-7.

    3. Tarrant, CC (2006). Continuity, trust, and cooperation: a Game Theory perspective on the GP-patient interaction. PhD thesis, University of Leicester.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (21 March 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Investigating Some Further Consequences of Physician Trust in Patients Using the New Thom et al. Physician Scale: A Commentary
    Investigating Some Further Consequences of Physician Trust in Patients Using the New Thom et al. Physician Scale: A Commentary
    • Roderick M Kramer, Stanford, CA

    Thom et al. contribute a valuable new scale for assessing physicians’ trust in their patients. As the authors of this study aptly note, the level of trust between patients and physicians plays a vital role in the quality of their relationship. As numerous studies have documented, trust can impact important medical outcomes in a variety of ways. Yet, as the authors point out, our understanding of the physician “side” of...

    Show More

    Thom et al. contribute a valuable new scale for assessing physicians’ trust in their patients. As the authors of this study aptly note, the level of trust between patients and physicians plays a vital role in the quality of their relationship. As numerous studies have documented, trust can impact important medical outcomes in a variety of ways. Yet, as the authors point out, our understanding of the physician “side” of this complex and fragile equation has been hindered by inadequate theoretical elaboration and incomplete empirical evidence. Thom et al.’s new research advances our knowledge on both fronts. First, the original scale they introduce directs our attention to some of the major dimensions along which physicians’ trust in their relationships with patients should be conceptualized. Second, it provides solid empirical evidence of the usefulness of these measures with respect to a number of consequential outcomes in medical settings.

    The addition of this instrument to the researcher’s tool-kit invites consideration of its possible uses for further empirical investigations and extensions of extant theory. As a social psychologist who studies the cognitive and affective antecedents and consequences of trust in organizational settings, I’ve been intrigued by the many ways in which low trust (or more accurately framed, active distrust) can inhibit individuals from taking the kinds of interpersonal risks that lead to the building of more effective, cooperative relationships. Applied to Thom et al.’s research, my research suggests that physicians might be less willing to fully express all of their concerns or might modify how they present or “frame” such concerns to their patients.

    Along such lines, important research by Amy Edmondson has demonstrated the importance of what she characterizes as “psychological safety” in organizational relationships. Edmondson defines psychological safety in terms of “individuals’ perceptions about the consequences of interpersonal risks in their work environment.” Such safety, she goes on to elaborate, “encompasses take-for-granted beliefs about how others will respond when one puts oneself on the line, such as by asking a question, seeking feedback, reporting a mistake, or proposing a new idea” (p. 241). In climates characterized by high psychological safety, Edmondson has shown across a variety of settings (including medical), individuals are more likely to appropriate help, useful diagnostic feedback, self-disclose their concerns regarding possible errors or perceived problems, and engage in more creative, collaborative problem solving.

    Thus, in addition to the “hard” behavioral concomitants of physician trust in patients that Thom et al. nicely document in their study, their new scale might be used to investigate more thoroughly such subtle determinants of psychological safety and their consequences.

    References

    Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419-1952.

    Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, pp. 239-274. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Kramer, R. M. (1999a). Paranoid cognition in social systems: Thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 251-275.

    Kramer, R. M. (1999b). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569- 598.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Published on: (18 March 2011)
    Page navigation anchor for Physician Trust in Patient Measure
    Physician Trust in Patient Measure
    • Stephen J Zyzanski, Cleveland, USA

    This carefully constructed measure fills a gap in the measurement of mutual trust and serves as an aid to practice-based researchers interested in examining doctor-patient communication and relationships. The availability of this new measure makes it possible to study mutual trust, patient outcomes of care and physician satisfaction in the same context. What makes this measure particularly attractive is the way in which...

    Show More

    This carefully constructed measure fills a gap in the measurement of mutual trust and serves as an aid to practice-based researchers interested in examining doctor-patient communication and relationships. The availability of this new measure makes it possible to study mutual trust, patient outcomes of care and physician satisfaction in the same context. What makes this measure particularly attractive is the way in which it was constructed. The methods used to develop the two-factor trust measure employed a very useful approach (the Pratt measurement matrix) for interpreting oblique factor analysis solutions and for developing scales based on correlated factors. The Pratt coefficients seem to be quite useful in helping to provide more valid interpretations of oblique factor solutions as well as aid in the selection of the items to retain for each factor scale. The authors also provide evidence of both convergent and discriminant validity for their scales further enhancing confidence in the psychometric properties of the measure. It will be interesting to track how this new measure and the Pratt matrix are used by other investigators. Moreover, it’s always nice to add a reliable and valid measure to the compendium of measures available to primary care researchers.

    Competing interests:   None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (2)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 9 (2)
Vol. 9, Issue 2
March/April 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Physician Trust in the Patient: Development and Validation of a New Measure
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
10 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Physician Trust in the Patient: Development and Validation of a New Measure
David H. Thom, Sabrina T. Wong, David Guzman, Amery Wu, Joanne Penko, Christine Miaskowski, Margot Kushel
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2011, 9 (2) 148-154; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1224

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Physician Trust in the Patient: Development and Validation of a New Measure
David H. Thom, Sabrina T. Wong, David Guzman, Amery Wu, Joanne Penko, Christine Miaskowski, Margot Kushel
The Annals of Family Medicine Mar 2011, 9 (2) 148-154; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1224
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Trust Takes Two...
  • Trust Takes Two...
  • The 'One in a Million study: creating a database of UK primary care consultations
  • The Conversation Continues, as It Should
  • In This Issue: Back to Basics: Talking, Listening, and Low-Tech Primary Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Joint Display of Integrated Data Collection for Mixed Methods Research: An Illustration From a Pediatric Oncology Quality Improvement Study
  • Patient-Guided Tours: A Patient-Centered Methodology to Understand Patient Experiences of Health Care
  • Putting Evidence Into Practice: An Update on the US Preventive Services Task Force Methods for Developing Recommendations for Preventive Services
Show more Methodology

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Quantitative methods
    • Mixed methods
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Relationship
  • Other topics:
    • Possible emerging topic

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine