Factors associated with patient trust in physicians: domain-specific association analyses and exploratory prediction in a cross-sectional web panel survey in Japan

Patient trust in physicians is central to the physician–patient relationship. However, the extent to which readily observable care-process, linguistic, and physician-related variables explain trust remains unclear. We examined three conceptually motivated domains and the broader predictability of trust from questionnaire data. We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a non-probability commercial web panel with nationwide geographic coverage among adults in Japan who had a usual physician. Trust100, a 0–100 score derived from five items based on the Japanese version of the Abbreviated Wake Forest Interpersonal Trust in Physician Scale, was the outcome. Domain-specific association analyses examined waiting time, physician–respondent local-dialect use, and attitudes toward and awareness of the physician’s medical school. Adjusted linear models used heteroskedasticity-robust covariance estimates, with Holm correction across three global domain-level tests. Separately, mean-prediction, ordinary least-squares, ridge, and Extra Trees models were compared using repeated nested cross-validation. Consultation time was examined post hoc after showing the highest mean permutation importance. The study was not prospectively registered, although a dated study protocol and questionnaire had been prepared before data collection. Among 2,173 respondents, mean Trust100 was 66.8. Waiting time showed a weak negative association, but the adjusted association did not remain statistically significant after Holm correction (adjusted p = 0.073; partial R² = 0.0043). No clear association was observed for physician–respondent dialect-use combinations in the pooled region-adjusted analysis ( p = 0.783; partial R² = 0.0005), with no statistical evidence of regional heterogeneity. The global test for the medical-school attitude/awareness domain remained statistically significant after Holm correction, but explanatory contribution was limited (partial R² = 0.022), the pattern was non-monotonic, and no interaction was observed. In a post hoc descriptive comparison, respondents reporting consultation times of ≥ 3 min had a mean Trust100 score 7.69 points higher than those reporting < 3 min (95% confidence interval, 6.10 to 9.27). Patient trust was only weakly explained and predicted by the measured questionnaire variables. Unmeasured relational or contextual factors and measurement limitations may both contribute.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2026-09-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-026-15698-2
Primary Topic
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Factors associated with patient trust in physicians: domain-specific association analyses and exploratory prediction in a cross-sectional web panel survey in Japan

Takashi Watari, Akiko Tokinobu, Masashi Ikuno, 片岡仁美 et al.
BMC Health Services Research
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
article

Factors associated with patient trust in physicians: domain-specific association analyses and exploratory prediction in a cross-sectional web panel survey in Japan

Takashi Watari, Akiko Tokinobu, Masashi Ikuno, 片岡仁美, Ami Fukuhisa, Tsuyoshi Wakabayashi, Tomoko Miyoshi, Daio Onizuka
article en

Abstract

Patient trust in physicians is central to the physician–patient relationship. However, the extent to which readily observable care-process, linguistic, and physician-related variables explain trust remains unclear. We examined three conceptually motivated domains and the broader predictability of trust from questionnaire data. We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a non-probability commercial web panel with nationwide geographic coverage among adults in Japan who had a usual physician. Trust100, a 0–100 score derived from five items based on the Japanese version of the Abbreviated Wake Forest Interpersonal Trust in Physician Scale, was the outcome. Domain-specific association analyses examined waiting time, physician–respondent local-dialect use, and attitudes toward and awareness of the physician’s medical school. Adjusted linear models used heteroskedasticity-robust covariance estimates, with Holm correction across three global domain-level tests. Separately, mean-prediction, ordinary least-squares, ridge, and Extra Trees models were compared using repeated nested cross-validation. Consultation time was examined post hoc after showing the highest mean permutation importance. The study was not prospectively registered, although a dated study protocol and questionnaire had been prepared before data collection. Among 2,173 respondents, mean Trust100 was 66.8. Waiting time showed a weak negative association, but the adjusted association did not remain statistically significant after Holm correction (adjusted p = 0.073; partial R² = 0.0043). No clear association was observed for physician–respondent dialect-use combinations in the pooled region-adjusted analysis ( p = 0.783; partial R² = 0.0005), with no statistical evidence of regional heterogeneity. The global test for the medical-school attitude/awareness domain remained statistically significant after Holm correction, but explanatory contribution was limited (partial R² = 0.022), the pattern was non-monotonic, and no interaction was observed. In a post hoc descriptive comparison, respondents reporting consultation times of ≥ 3 min had a mean Trust100 score 7.69 points higher than those reporting < 3 min (95% confidence interval, 6.10 to 9.27). Patient trust was only weakly explained and predicted by the measured questionnaire variables. Unmeasured relational or contextual factors and measurement limitations may both contribute.

BMC Health Services Research
Kyoto University (JP), Kyoto University Hospital (JP)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.