Public trust in health care: a comparison of Germany, The Netherlands, and England and Wales.

This article describes public trust in health care in three European countries. Public trust is a generalised attitude, influenced by people's experiences in contacts with representatives of institutions, in its turn influencing how people enter these contacts. In general, people in Germany have less trust in health care, while people in England and Wales have the highest trust levels. Cultural differences between the three countries could be an important source of differences. That makes public trust a less straightforward candidate for use as indicator of the future oriented dimension of user views in an international, comparative performance framework.

German ambulatory care physicians' perspectives on clinical guidelines - a national survey.

BACKGROUND: There has been little systematic research about the extent to which German physicians accept or reject the concept and practice of a) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and b) evidence based medicine (EBM)The aim of this study was to investigate German office-based physicians' perspective on CPGs and EBM and their application in medical practice. METHODS: Structured national telephone survey of ambulatory care physicians, four thematic blocks with 21 questions (5 point Likert scale). 511 office-based general practitioners and specialists. Main outcome measures were the application of Clinical Practice Guidelines in daily practice, preference for sources of guidelines and degree of knowledge and acceptance of EBM. In the data analysis Pearson's correlation coefficient was used for explorative analysis of correlations. The comparison of groups was performed by Student's t-test. Chi2 test was used to investigate distribution of two or more categorical variables. RESULTS: Of the total study population 55.3% of physicians reported already using guidelines in the treatment of patients. Physicians in group practices (GrP) as well as general practitioners (GP) agreed significantly more with the usefulness of guidelines as a basis for patient care than doctors in single practices (SP) or specialists (S) (Student's t-test mean GP 2.57, S 2.84, p < 0.01; mean GrP 2.55, SP 2.80, p < 0.05). 33.1% of the participants demonstrated a strong rejection to the application of guidelines in patient care. Acceptance of guidelines from a governmental institution was substantially lower than from physician networks or medical societies (36.2% vs. 53.4% vs. 62.0%). 73.8% of doctors interpret EBM as a combination of scientific research and individual medical knowledge; 80% regard EBM as the best basis for patient care. CONCLUSION: Despite a majority of physicians accepting and applying CPGs a large group remains that is critical and opposed to the utilization of CPGs in daily practice and to the concept of EBM in general. Doctors in single practice and specialists appear to be more critical than physicians in group practices and GPs. Future research is needed to evaluate the willingness to acquire necessary knowledge and skills for the promotion and routine application of CPGs.

[Shared decision making. The perspective of practicing physicians]. / "Shared Decision Making"Gemeinsame Entscheidungsfindung aus der ärztlichen Perspektive.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: More and more, patients want to participate in medical decision making. They expect a patient-centered communication as well as adequate information. However, little is known about the physicians' perspective and skills regarding shared decision making (SDM). This paper presents data about the physicians' perspective and allows focused comparison with the patients' views. METHODS: Standardized survey of 502 physicians from ambulatory care practices and of 1,512 German-speaking people, aged 18-79 years. Patient data were collected from a population-based random sample of an access panel. The following topics were included in this survey: medical decision making in daily practice, communication skills and behavior of physicians from the perspectives of physicians and patients. RESULTS: A majority of physicians approve the concept of SDM. Especially younger physicians favor the concept of SDM. Overall, physicians underestimate their patients' preference to participate in medical decision making. Physicians also tend to overestimate their information and communication skills. CONCLUSION: Not only in the general public, but also among physicians, a model of SDM is widely accepted. The communication skills necessary for this process appear to exist. However, they need to be promoted and extended. Learning to communicate adequately should receive a greater focus in medical education and postgraduate training.