Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to investigate the current status of patients’ presupposed distrust, and to clarify the causes of high presupposed distrust.
Patients and Methods
An explanatory sequential mixed methods study was conducted using a two-stage design. The first phase was a quantitative cross-sectional survey, a total of 384 patients by convenience sampling completed the survey. Study instruments including demographic and clinical characteristics sheet, patients’ presupposed distrust scale. In the qualitative phase, 16 patients on the basis of their mean score for all PPDS items were higher than 4 were identified as extreme cases participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews.
Results
The total item mean score for all patients on PPDS was 3.59(3.18, 4.09), which above the median range of the PPDS (item mean score of 3). Personal income level and educational level were significant predictive influencing factors of patients’ presupposed distrust, which could explain 17.347% of the variance. The reasons of high patients’ presupposed distrust were as follows: moral character, health knowledge, patient perceptions, and the social circumstance.
Conclusion
The level of patients’ presupposed distrust was high, which needs to be further decreased. Demographic and clinical variables (personal income level, educational level) are identified to be the major contributing factors. The main causes for the formation of the high patients’ presupposed distrust are patients internal factors and social circumstance.
Abbreviations
PPDS, Patients’ Presupposed Distrust Scale; RMB: Renminbi.
Acknowledgments
We express our sincere gratitude to all the patients who volunteered to participate in this study. And special thanks to the three hospitals for their support and help in the data collection process.
Author Contributions
All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.