Medical discrimination and the selective erosion of institutional health trust: evidence from the Health Information National Trends Survey 6 and 7
Park, A.; Yin, L.; Wong, A.; Lee, C.; Choi, Y.
Show abstract
Medical discrimination may alter how patients relate to health information sources following adverse care encounters. We examined whether discrimination experience is associated with selective erosion of institutional health trust and with compensatory digital health engagement, using nationally representative data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 6 (2022; n=6,252) and HINTS 7 (2024; n=7,278). Survey-weighted modified Poisson regression estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for binary high-trust outcomes, and survey-weighted ordinary least squares estimated coefficients for continuous outcomes; jackknife replicate weights (50 replicates) provided variance estimates. Discrimination was associated with substantially lower probability of high trust in the healthcare system (PR=0.39; 95% CI 0.30-0.52) and physicians (PR=0.85; 95% CI 0.77-0.94), with no significant association for trust in scientists, government, family, or religious organisations. The clinical-institutional pattern replicated in HINTS 6, which additionally showed reduced trust in scientists for race/ethnicity-based discrimination. Contrary to a disengagement hypothesis, discrimination-exposed adults showed higher probability of online health information seeking (PR=1.06), health app use (PR=1.11), and online provider messaging (PR=1.13); these associations persisted after adjustment for trust in physicians. Discrimination was independently associated with lower health self-efficacy (b=-0.271). Medical discrimination selectively erodes trust in clinical institutions while leaving broader epistemic trust largely intact. Despite this, discrimination-exposed patients engage more actively with digital health channels, consistent with compensatory reorientation toward non-clinical information sources. These findings describe engaged but institutionally alienated patients, with implications for restoring clinical trust and for equity-centred digital health design.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.