Romanians Trust Doctors More Than Hospitals: What Studies Reveal About Trust in Medicine and Science

Romanians place greater trust in healthcare professionals than in healthcare institutions, according to the latest Wellcome Global Monitor. In Romania, 76% of respondents report at least some trust in doctors and nurses, but only 62% express the same level of confidence in hospitals and health clinics. Trust in science and scientists stands at 66% in both cases. A Medic24 analysis of several international and national studies reveals that trust in medicine is far from uniform, while differences between Romania and other European countries are substantial.

Can patients trust the doctor treating them while remaining skeptical about the hospital where that doctor works? Can people regard scientists as trustworthy without being convinced that scientific advances improve their own lives?

Several recent surveys offer insights into these questions. Although they use different methodologies and definitions of trust, their findings highlight an important distinction between how Romanians perceive healthcare professionals, healthcare institutions and the scientific community.

Medic24 examined data for Romania and Europe from the Wellcome Global Monitor 2026, alongside findings from Ipsos, OECD and Eurobarometer surveys.

Trust in doctors and nurses reaches 76%, compared with 62% for hospitals and clinics

The Wellcome Global Monitor 2026 is one of the world’s most extensive surveys of public attitudes towards science and health. Published in October 2026, the report draws on interviews conducted in 2025 with more than 140,000 people across 140 countries.

In Romania, the sample comprised 1,000 respondents, with results weighted to represent the population aged 15 and over.

An important feature of the survey is that respondents could indicate whether they had a lot of trust, some trust, not much trust or no trust at all. The distinction between the first two categories significantly affects how the results should be interpreted.

The first observation is that a majority of Romanians express at least some trust in all four categories. However, the strength of that trust varies.

For doctors and nurses, 38% of respondents report a lot of trust, while another 38% report some trust. For hospitals and clinics, only 29% express a lot of confidence and 33% some confidence.

The gap between trust in healthcare professionals and trust in healthcare institutions is 14 percentage points.

At the other end of the scale, 35% of respondents express little or no confidence in hospitals and clinics, compared with 23% for doctors and nurses.

Why might trust in doctors differ from trust in hospitals?

The findings do not prove that Romanians appreciate their doctors while regarding hospitals as incompetent. The questions measure different categories, and the survey does not establish the underlying causes of respondents’ attitudes.

Nevertheless, the difference suggests a relevant hypothesis: patients may evaluate the competence or conduct of healthcare professionals separately from the performance of the institutions where they receive care.

Trust in a doctor develops through consultations, explanations, continuity of care and clinical outcomes. Assessments of hospitals may also reflect waiting times, internal organization, access to diagnostic tests, inpatient conditions or out-of-pocket expenses.

These are possible explanations, not causes confirmed by the Wellcome survey.

However, complementary research supports the need to distinguish personal experiences with healthcare professionals from perceptions of the healthcare system as a whole.

In the OECD PaRIS study, published in 2025, only 52% of Romanian patients with chronic conditions included in the survey reported trusting the healthcare system, compared with an average of 62% across participating OECD countries.

At the same time, 92% of Romanian patients with chronic conditions reported person-centred care, above the OECD PaRIS average of 87%.

Therefore, patients may evaluate certain aspects of the care they receive positively while expressing lower overall confidence in the healthcare system.

OECD PaRIS examined the experiences of primary healthcare users, with particular emphasis on patients living with chronic conditions. Its findings should not automatically be generalized to the entire population or directly compared, percentage by percentage, with the Wellcome results.

For family medicine, this distinction is especially relevant: continuity in the doctor–patient relationship and trust in individual professionals may be important assets within a healthcare system that faces more critical public perceptions at the institutional level.

Romania ranks above Eastern Europe overall, but remains far behind Western Europe

Comparing Wellcome results across European regions reveals significant differences in the intensity of trust. For this comparison, the indicator is exclusively the percentage of respondents reporting a lot of trust, rather than the combined share of positive responses.

Romania scores above the Eastern European regional aggregates in all four categories, although the difference is small for science and scientists.

By contrast, the gap with Western Europe reaches 34 percentage points for doctors and nurses and 29 points for hospitals and clinics.

However, geographical location alone does not explain the differences.

Czechia, also classified as part of Eastern Europe in the Wellcome survey, records 62% reporting a lot of trust in doctors and nurses, 50% in hospitals, 55% in scientists and 49% in science. All four figures are substantially higher than those recorded in Romania.

In Spain, 77% of respondents express a lot of trust in doctors and nurses, while 71% report the same level of trust in scientists. In Finland, the corresponding figures are 77% and 68%.

What Ipsos found: scientists are perceived as more trustworthy than doctors

A different perspective comes from the Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Index 2026, a survey conducted in 31 countries between June 19 and July 3, 2026.

Across the 31-country average, doctors are the professional group most frequently considered trustworthy (58%), followed by scientists (57%) and teachers (53%).

In Romania, the ranking is reversed for doctors and scientists: 54% of Ipsos respondents consider scientists trustworthy, compared with 45% for doctors.

There is therefore a notable difference from Wellcome, where expressed trust in doctors and nurses is higher than trust in scientists.

This does not necessarily mean the studies contradict one another. Ipsos asks respondents to rate the trustworthiness of professional groups on a five-point scale, combining the two positive categories. Wellcome asks how much respondents trust each group, using four explicit levels of trust, alongside non-responses.

Furthermore, Ipsos evaluates doctors and scientists separately, whereas Wellcome combines doctors and nurses into a single category.

Differences in sampling are also relevant. In Romania, the Ipsos survey included approximately 500 online respondents aged 16–74. Ipsos notes that the sample is more urban, more educated and/or more affluent than the general population, reflecting to a greater extent the opinions of the country’s connected population.

The Ipsos report also places Romania and Poland at the bottom of the overall trustworthiness index for the professions assessed. This ranking reflects responses across all professional groups, not just doctors and scientists.

Older Romanians report stronger trust in healthcare professionals

Another dimension of the Wellcome data concerns differences between age groups.

In Romania, 51% of respondents aged 65 and over report a lot of trust in doctors and nurses, compared with just 25% of those aged 25–34.

For hospitals and clinics, the corresponding figures are 40% and 24%.

These differences may reflect medical experiences, different levels of healthcare use or other social and demographic characteristics. However, the survey does not establish that trust automatically increases as people grow older.

It compares different generations at a single point in time rather than following the same individuals throughout their lives.

Trust in science: Romania trails many European countries

Wellcome data show that 27% of Romanians express a lot of trust in science, while another 39% report some trust.

The distribution is similar for scientists: 29% report a lot of trust and 37% some trust.

In both cases, therefore, about two-thirds of respondents express at least some degree of trust.

Nevertheless, the proportion reporting a lot of trust in science is considerably lower in Romania than in countries such as Spain (68%), Finland (66%) and Germany (60%).

A complementary perspective comes from Special Eurobarometer 557, published by the European Commission in 2025.

According to this survey, only 49% of respondents in Romania agree that science and technology make our lives easier, healthier and more comfortable, compared with 67% across the European Union.

Romania records the lowest level of agreement with this statement among EU member states.

However, Eurobarometer measures perceptions of the benefits of science and technology rather than direct trust in scientists. The two dimensions should not be confused.

People may consider researchers competent and trustworthy while still questioning how scientific discoveries translate into benefits for society.

Trusting doctors does not automatically mean accepting every medical recommendation

Attitudes towards vaccination provide a relevant example.

According to findings from the July 2026 Poll/Int Romania Barometer, reported by Digi24, doctors rank first among professional groups in terms of respondents expressing a lot or a great deal of trust, at 54.1%.

In the same survey, 56.7% of respondents agree that vaccines recommended by doctors are safe, while 64.9% consider childhood vaccination in accordance with medical recommendations important.

The findings also reveal differences by education level: 71.8% of respondents with education beyond high school agree that doctor-recommended vaccines are safe, compared with 44.8% of those with less than a high school education.

These results do not mean that everyone who failed to express agreement rejects vaccination. Some may have reservations or remain undecided. Moreover, general trust in doctors and acceptance of a preventive intervention are distinct attitudes measured through different questions.

The Poll/Int Barometer used a mixed telephone and online methodology, with questions concerning trust and vaccines administered to the online sample. This methodological feature should be considered when interpreting the percentages.

For clinical practice, the observation is important: a positive public image of the medical profession does not guarantee unconditional acceptance of every clinical recommendation.

Globally, trust in science has declined since the pandemic

The Wellcome Global Monitor also enables comparisons over time, using results from its 2018, 2020 and 2025 surveys.

Across the 108 countries included in all three waves, the proportion of people reporting a lot or some trust in science stood at 77% in 2018, rose to 80% in 2020 and declined to 72% in 2025.

Globally, the proportion expressing a lot of trust in scientists increased from 34% in 2018 to 43% in 2020, before falling to 32% in 2025.

These developments show that trust in science is not fixed and may change considerably over time.

However, global trends cannot automatically be attributed to Romania. A rigorous assessment of national changes requires comparisons based on the same questions, the same response categories and samples collected using comparable methodologies.

The Wellcome report also identifies an association between trust in science and trust in healthcare institutions at the international level. Among respondents expressing a lot of confidence in hospitals and clinics, 43% also report a lot of trust in science, compared with approximately 26% across all respondents.

People reporting financial difficulties also tend to express strong trust in science less frequently than those who say they live comfortably.

These associations do not establish causality, but they suggest that trust in science cannot be fully understood without considering people’s experiences with institutions and their living conditions.

What do these findings mean for Romania’s healthcare system?

Taken together, the surveys do not describe a population that rejects medicine or science. Instead, they portray a society in which levels of trust vary considerably depending on what is being assessed and how the question is asked.

Doctors, hospitals, the healthcare system, researchers and science are not perceived in the same way. Equally, having some trust is not the same as having a lot of trust.

For healthcare professionals, one possible implication is that the individual trust doctors enjoy may provide a valuable foundation for medical communication and continuity of care. However, it cannot, on its own, compensate for perceived problems with access, organization or quality at the institutional level.

For health authorities and hospital managers, the gap between trust in professionals and trust in institutions raises a question worth investigating directly: what specific experiences lead patients to assess doctors differently from the healthcare system in which they work?

Finally, for science communication, the findings show that researchers’ professional prestige should not automatically be assumed to translate into acceptance of scientific findings or public health recommendations.

Methodological note: This Medic24 analysis uses Wellcome Global Monitor 2026 data collected in 2025, alongside findings from Ipsos 2026, OECD PaRIS 2025, Special Eurobarometer 557 and Poll/Int 2026. The surveys differ in sample composition, question wording and response scales. The figures are presented for context and should not be treated as directly interchangeable measurements. Numerical differences between groups do not automatically imply statistical significance, and observed associations do not establish causality.