Trust in Health Care and Science: Toward Common Ground on Key Concepts.

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Health Care Policy
• Science and Technology Studies

Background:

• Trust in health care and science is crucial but often conceptually muddled.
• Previous research has treated trust as a purely instrumental good, overlooking its complexities.
• The Hastings Center Report's special collection, "Time to Rebuild: Essays on Trust in Health Care and Science," addresses these issues.

Purpose of the Study:

• To summarize key insights from essays on trust in health care and science.
• To clarify distinct concepts of trust and trustworthiness.
• To advance research by addressing conceptual confusion and instrumental views of trust.

Main Methods:

• Synthesis and summarization of key insights from multiple essays.
• Conceptual analysis of trust, trustworthiness, and competence.
• Exploration of trust as an interpersonal and structural phenomenon.

Main Results:

• Trust and trustworthiness are distinct concepts.
• Competence is necessary but insufficient for trust.
• Trust is a reciprocal good, not solely instrumental.
• Trust operates at both interpersonal and structural levels.
• Building and borrowing trust are different strategies.
• The contingent nature of science poses challenges to trustworthiness.

Conclusions:

• Distinguishing trust from trustworthiness and competence is essential for rebuilding it.
• Recognizing trust as a reciprocal good, influenced by interpersonal and structural factors, is vital.
• Addressing the ethical imperative of being trustworthy, not just seeking trust, is key.
• These insights offer a more nuanced framework for understanding and fostering trust in health care and science.