kathimerini.gr
Low Trust in Greek Healthcare System Among Chronically Ill Revealed by OECD Study
The OECD's PaRIS study reveals that only 36% of Greeks with chronic diseases trust their national healthcare system, the lowest among 19 countries, due to fragmented care, poor coordination, and lack of electronic health record utilization.
- What systemic changes are necessary to improve trust in Greece's healthcare system and address the long-term implications of this low confidence?
- Continued low trust threatens the Greek healthcare system's sustainability. Addressing this requires improvements in primary care, effective service coordination, and the implementation of electronic health records. Failure to do so will exacerbate existing inequalities and further strain the system.
- How do fragmented care, poor service coordination, and underutilization of electronic health records contribute to the low trust in Greece's healthcare system?
- The low trust in Greece's healthcare system is linked to systemic issues: inadequate coordination of services (47% report good coordination), insufficient monitoring of patients with multiple chronic diseases (24% report systematic monitoring), and minimal use of electronic health records (3% vs. 57% average).
- What is the most significant finding of the OECD's PaRIS study regarding trust in Greece's healthcare system among those with chronic illnesses, and what are the immediate implications?
- A recent OECD study, PaRIS, reveals that only 36% of Greeks with chronic illnesses trust their national healthcare system (ESY), the lowest among 19 participating countries (average 62%). This lack of trust stems from fragmented care, poor service coordination, and underutilization of electronic health records.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the shortcomings of the Greek healthcare system. The headline (if any) and introduction likely focus on the low trust levels and negative statistics. The use of statistics showing Greece's poor performance compared to other OECD nations reinforces this negative framing. While the negative aspects are important, a more balanced presentation might include more context and positive examples.
Language Bias
The language is largely neutral, using factual data and quotes from experts. There's no overtly emotional or loaded language. However, the repeated emphasis on negative statistics could subtly shape the reader's perception.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the negative aspects of the Greek healthcare system, and while it mentions positive evaluations of healthcare quality by some patients (74%), it doesn't delve into the reasons behind those positive views or explore successful aspects of the system in detail. This omission could lead to an incomplete picture of the healthcare situation.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't present a false dichotomy, but it does highlight the significant disparity between Greece and other OECD countries. While this comparison is valid, it might benefit from a more nuanced discussion of the factors contributing to the differences rather than simply presenting the raw data.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a significant lack of trust in the Greek healthcare system among individuals with chronic diseases. Only 36% of respondents trust the system, far below the OECD average of 62%. This low trust is attributed to insufficient care coordination, ineffective use of electronic health records, and a lack of systematic monitoring. These findings directly impact SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. The low trust and inadequate care coordination hinder access to quality healthcare services and negatively affect health outcomes for a significant portion of the population.