AI Insight
This study analyzed data from over 13,000 Americans across two national surveys to examine how experiencing medical discrimination affects trust in health institutions and digital health engagement. Researchers found that people who reported medical discrimination showed significantly reduced trust in the healthcare system and physicians, but not in scientists, government, or other institutions. Paradoxically, these same individuals were more likely to seek health information online, use health apps, and message providers digitally, suggesting they compensate by turning to alternative information channels rather than disengaging entirely.
Why it matters
The findings reveal that medical discrimination creates a population of patients who remain engaged with health information but are alienated from clinical institutions, which has important implications for healthcare equity and patient-provider relationships. Understanding this pattern could help design better digital health tools and interventions to restore clinical trust among discrimination-exposed populations.
⚠️ Preprint – Noch nicht peer-reviewed
Dieser Artikel wurde noch nicht von unabhängigen Experten begutachtet. Die Ergebnisse sind vorläufig und sollten mit Vorsicht interpretiert werden.
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.