Expectation and Patient Preference – does it Matter?1

Development and psychometric validation of the hospitalized patients' expectations for treatment scalepatient version

Objectives

A general expectation measurement of inpatients across wards is needed in the patient safety management systems of general hospitals. This study developed and psychometrically validated a new scale fulfilling the requirements above: the Hospitalized Patients' Expectations for Treatment Scale-Patient version (HOPE-P).

Methods

A total of 35 experts and ten inpatients were interviewed during the formulation of the HOPE-P scale, which was initially designed with three dimensions: doctor-patient communication expectations, treatment outcome expectations, and disease management expectancy. We recruited 210 inpatients from a general hospital in China and explored the reliability, validity, and psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire. Item analysis, construct validity, internal consistency and 7-day test-retest reliability analysis were applied.

Results

Exploratory and confirmatory analyses supported a 2-dimension (doctor-patient communication expectation and treatment outcome expectation) structure with satisfactory model fit parameters (root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.035, a root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.072, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.984, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.970). Item analysis revealed an appropriate item design (r = 0.573-0.820). The scale exhibited good internal consistency, with Cronbach's α of 0.893, 0.761, and 0.919 for the overall scale, the doctor-patient communication expectation subscale, and the treatment outcome expectation subscale, respectively. The 7-day test-retest reliability was 0.782 (p < .001).

Conclusion

Our results indicated that the HOPE-P is a reliable and valid assessment tool to measure the expectations of general hospital inpatients, with a strong capacity to recognize patients' expectations regarding doctor-patient communication and treatment outcomes.

Informed consent in clinical trials

A review is provided in this paper on the empirical literature on informed consent from 1979 to 1995 referring to information disclosure and trial participation in clinical trials. Articles being reviewed focus upon information disclosure, reactions to disclosure and recall, features of consent and perceptions of informed consent, both in hypothetical and in real life situations. It is concluded that further research is needed to study the process of informed consent in clinical trials, to obtain a better insight into the myth and reality of informed consent in daily practice. Future studies should come forward on the limitations of previous empirical research on informed consent. Additional research should focus on the perspectives of patients who accept or decline trial participation.

Recruitment experience in clinical trials: literature summary and annotated bibliography

A literature review was conducted to determine what problems exist in accruing adequate numbers of patients for clinical trials. Accrual rates are often not clearly reported, and most studies report that the time period for accrual was extended. Delays in recruitment have an impact on costs and workload throughout the trial. Other problems with the recruitment outcomes include miscalculations in the number of eligible participants in the total population, variations in yield from different types of recruitment sources, and level of community awareness. Planning for recruitment should be part of the overall trial design. Ideally, recruitment planning should be conducted in harmony between the national and local levels. Local community members should be involved. Data-based management of recruitment is necessary and should include a comprehensive data monitoring system with strong administrative support at both central and local levels. Recruitment goals and provisions for corrective action if recruitment lags should be included. Socioeconomic characteristics and attitudes of patients and physicians should be considered in recruitment efforts because they can affect patient participation during all phases of the study.

Participation in a clinical trial: the patients' point of view

Little systematic information is available concerning the advantages and disadvantages of participation in a clinical trial from the patients' point of view. Surveys were undertaken among participants in the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial (BHAT) and the Aspirin Myocardial Infarction Study (AMIS) to obtain data on these perceptions. In AMIS, an open-ended personal interview format was employed. For BHAT, a questionnaire partially based on hypotheses generated in AMIS, was mailed out. Results from the two studies suggested that patients in both trials felt that the additional medical monitoring, the opportunity for a "second opinion," and the reassurance received were more important benefits than actual physical improvement. Altruistic motivations were high in both studies. Frequency of perceived disadvantages was low, centering mainly around transportation problems and clinic waiting time. The large majority of patients indicated that they would volunteer for similar research in the future. The results are discussed in the context of the available literature and of the possibilities for extensions of this line of research.

Naproxen sodium, diflunisal, and placebo in the treatment of chronic back pain

Thirty-seven patients with chronic back pain were entered into a randomised, 3-way, double-blind, cross-over comparison of naproxen sodium 550 mg twice daily, diflunisal 500 mg twice daily, and placebo. Each treatment was given for 14 days after a preadmission wash-out week during which only paracetamol was allowed. Patients were assessed on admission and at the end of each treatment with respect to global pain, night pain, pain on movement, and pain on standing. Both visual analogue scales and simple descriptive scales were used to measure pain. Side effects were elicited by a nonleading question. Both methods of pain measurement gave similar results and were highly correlated. Naproxen sodium was superior to placebo in relieving global pain and depending on the method of measurement, in relieving night pain and pain on movement. Diflunisal showed no significant differences from placebo. Side effects were similar on all 3 treatments. The final preference of the patients was significantly in favour of the active treatments.