27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A qualitative study of the role of workplace and interpersonal trust in shaping service quality and responsiveness in Zambian primary health centres

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Human decisions, actions and relationships that invoke trust are at the core of functional and productive health systems. Although widely studied in high-income settings, comparatively few studies have explored the influence of trust on health system performance in low- and middle-income countries. This study examines how workplace and inter-personal trust impact service quality and responsiveness in primary health services in Zambia.

          Methods: This multi-case study included four health centres selected for urban, peri-urban and rural characteristics. Case data included provider interviews (60); patient interviews (180); direct observation of facility operations (two weeks/centre) and key informant interviews (14) that were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Case-based thematic analysis incorporated inductive and deductive coding.

          Results: Findings demonstrated that providers had weak workplace trust influenced by a combination of poor working conditions, perceptions of low pay and experiences of inequitable or inefficient health centre management. Weak trust in health centre managers’ organizational capacity and fairness contributed to resentment amongst many providers and promoted a culture of blame-shifting and one-upmanship that undermined teamwork and enabled disrespectful treatment of patients. Although patients expressed a high degree of trust in health workers’ clinical capacity, repeated experiences of disrespectful or unresponsive care undermined patients’ trust in health workers’ service values and professionalism. Lack of patient–provider trust prompted some patients to circumvent clinic systems in an attempt to secure better or more timely care.

          Conclusion: Lack of resourcing and poor leadership were key factors leading to providers’ weak workplace trust and contributed to often-poor quality services, driving a perverse cycle of negative patient–provider relations across the four sites. Findings highlight the importance of investing in both structural factors and organizational management to strengthen providers’ trust in their employer(s) and colleagues, as an entry-point for developing both the capacity and a work culture oriented towards respectful and patient-centred care.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures.

          The authors suggest that procedural and distributive factors interactively combine to influence individuals' reactions to their encounters with other people, groups, and organizations. Results from 45 independent samples (reviewed herein) show that (a) level of procedural justice is more positively related to individuals' reactions when outcome fairness or valence is relatively low and (b) level of outcome fairness or valence is more positively related to individuals' reactions when procedural justice is relatively low. They present various explanations of the interaction effect. Theoretical progress may be achieved through future efforts to delineate the conditions under which each of the explanations is more versus less likely to account for the interaction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Building the Field of Health Policy and Systems Research: Framing the Questions

            In the first of a series of articles addressing the current challenges and opportunities for the development of Health Policy & Systems Research (HPSR), Kabir Sheikh and colleagues lay out the main questions vexing the field.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Trust in physicians and medical institutions: what is it, can it be measured, and does it matter?

              Despite the profound and pervasive importance of trust in medical settings, there is no commonly shared understanding of what trust means, and little is known about what difference trust actually makes, what factors affect trust, and how trust relates to other similar attitudes and behaviors. To address this gap in understanding, the emerging theoretical, empirical, and public policy literature on trust in physicians and in medical institutions is reviewed and synthesized. Based on this review and additional research and analysis, a formal definition and conceptual model of trust is presented, with a review of the extent to which this model has been confirmed by empirical studies. This conceptual and empirical understanding has significance for ethics, law, and public policy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Policy Plan
                Health Policy Plan
                heapol
                heapol
                Health Policy and Planning
                Oxford University Press
                0268-1080
                1460-2237
                March 2016
                20 May 2015
                20 May 2015
                : 31
                : 2
                : 192-204
                Affiliations
                1Schools of Public Health and Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham, USA,
                2Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, PO Box 30338, Lusaka, Zambia,
                3Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, Level 4, 161 Barry Street, Alan Gilbert Building, Carlton 3010, VIC, Australia and
                4University of Lusaka, Plot No 37413, Mass Media, Lusaka 101010, Zambia
                Author notes
                *Corresponding author. Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia, PO Box 30338, Lusaka, 10101, Zambia. E-mail: globalstopp@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                czv041
                10.1093/heapol/czv041
                4748128
                25999586
                d5299cfe-0cf0-440d-b6f6-7ae63c0f0703
                © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 14 April 2015
                Page count
                Pages: 13
                Categories
                Original Articles

                Social policy & Welfare
                health systems,primary health care,service delivery,trust
                Social policy & Welfare
                health systems, primary health care, service delivery, trust

                Comments

                Comment on this article