↓ Skip to main content

‘Waiting for’ and ‘waiting in’ public and private hospitals: a qualitative study of patient trust in South Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
‘Waiting for’ and ‘waiting in’ public and private hospitals: a qualitative study of patient trust in South Australia
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12913-017-2281-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul R. Ward, Philippa Rokkas, Clinton Cenko, Mariastella Pulvirenti, Nicola Dean, A. Simon Carney, Samantha Meyer

Abstract

Waiting times for hospital appointments, treatment and/or surgery have become a major political and health service problem, leading to national maximum waiting times and policies to reduce waiting times. Quantitative studies have documented waiting times for various types of surgery and longer waiting times in public vs private hospitals. However, very little qualitative research has explored patient experiences of waiting, how this compares between public and private hospitals, and the implications for trust in hospitals and healthcare professionals. The aim of this paper is to provide a deep understanding of the impact of waiting times on patient trust in public and private hospitals. A qualitative study in South Australia, including 36 in-depth interviews (18 from public and 18 from private hospitals). Data collection occurred in 2012-13, and data were analysed using pre-coding, followed by conceptual and theoretical categorisation. Participants differentiated between experiences of 'waiting for' (e.g. for specialist appointments and surgery) and 'waiting in' (e.g. in emergency departments and outpatient clinics) public and private hospitals. Whilst 'waiting for' public hospitals was longer than private hospitals, this was often justified and accepted by public patients (e.g. due to reduced government funding), therefore it did not lead to distrust of public hospitals. Private patients had shorter 'waiting for' hospital services, increasing their trust in private hospitals and distrust of public hospitals. Public patients also recounted many experiences of longer 'waiting in' public hospitals, leading to frustration and anxiety, although they rarely blamed or distrusted the doctors or nurses, instead blaming an underfunded system and over-worked staff. Doctors and nurses were seen to be doing their best, and therefore trustworthy. Although public patients experienced longer 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' public hospitals, it did not lead to widespread distrust in public hospitals or healthcare professionals. Private patients recounted largely positive stories of reduced 'waiting for' and 'waiting in' private hospitals, and generally distrusted public hospitals. The continuing trust by public patients in the face of negative experiences may be understood as a form of exchange trust norm, in which institutional trust is based on base-level expectations of consistency and minimum standards of care and safety. The institutional trust by private patients may be understood as a form of communal trust norm, whereby trust is based on the additional and higher-level expectations of flexibility, reduced waiting and more time with healthcare professionals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Student > Bachelor 22 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Researcher 8 5%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 59 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 60 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2021.
All research outputs
#3,146,962
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,431
of 7,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,520
of 310,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#34
of 132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 132 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.