Jun J Mao1, Sharon X Xie, Marjorie A Bowman. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Philadelphia, USA. maoj@uphs.upenn.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Research suggests that expectancy may modulate the response to medical interventions, including acupuncture. However, the paucity of validated tools to measure expectancy limits rigorous evaluation. We sought to validate a previously developed Acupuncture Expectancy Scale (AES) as an instrument to measure patients' expected responses to acupuncture. PURPOSE: Participants were patients with stage I to III cancers seen in outpatient medical and radiation oncology clinics. They were drawn from three study cohorts that included 404 participants. We examined the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AES. RESULTS: The scores on the AES had internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient) of 0.95 and test-retest reliability of 0.62 over 4 weeks without acupuncture treatment. Those who had previously used acupuncture had higher AES scores compared to those who were acupuncture naive (12.4 vs 9.5, P = .002). AES scores were higher in those who reported willingness to participate in an acupuncture trial compared to those who did not want to participate in an acupuncture trial (11.5 vs 8.1, P < .001). Patients who enrolled in a pilot trial of acupuncture had higher AES scores than the general outpatient population (13.0 vs 9.8, P = .02), and expectancy increased during the course of acupuncture treatment (13.0 to 16.5, P < .017). CONCLUSION: The AES is reliable and valid, and scores appear to increase during or after prior therapy. Incorporation of AES in clinical trials and outcome studies can evaluate the role of expectancy on acupuncture outcomes.
PURPOSE: Research suggests that expectancy may modulate the response to medical interventions, including acupuncture. However, the paucity of validated tools to measure expectancy limits rigorous evaluation. We sought to validate a previously developed Acupuncture Expectancy Scale (AES) as an instrument to measure patients' expected responses to acupuncture. PURPOSE:Participants were patients with stage I to III cancers seen in outpatient medical and radiation oncology clinics. They were drawn from three study cohorts that included 404 participants. We examined the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AES. RESULTS: The scores on the AES had internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient) of 0.95 and test-retest reliability of 0.62 over 4 weeks without acupuncture treatment. Those who had previously used acupuncture had higher AES scores compared to those who were acupuncture naive (12.4 vs 9.5, P = .002). AES scores were higher in those who reported willingness to participate in an acupuncture trial compared to those who did not want to participate in an acupuncture trial (11.5 vs 8.1, P < .001). Patients who enrolled in a pilot trial of acupuncture had higher AES scores than the general outpatient population (13.0 vs 9.8, P = .02), and expectancy increased during the course of acupuncture treatment (13.0 to 16.5, P < .017). CONCLUSION: The AES is reliable and valid, and scores appear to increase during or after prior therapy. Incorporation of AES in clinical trials and outcome studies can evaluate the role of expectancy on acupuncture outcomes.
Authors: Klaus Linde; Claudia M Witt; Andrea Streng; Wolfgang Weidenhammer; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Benno Brinkhaus; Stefan N Willich; Dieter Melchart Journal: Pain Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Hanns-Peter Scharf; Ulrich Mansmann; Konrad Streitberger; Steffen Witte; Jürgen Krämer; Christoph Maier; Hans-Joachim Trampisch; Norbert Victor Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-07-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Remy R Coeytaux; Jay S Kaufman; Ted J Kaptchuk; Wunian Chen; William C Miller; Leigh F Callahan; J Douglas Mann Journal: Headache Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.887
Authors: Jun J Mao; Carrie Stricker; Deborah Bruner; Sharon Xie; Marjorie A Bowman; John T Farrar; Brandon T Greene; Angela DeMichele Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Richard E Harris; Jon-Kar Zubieta; David J Scott; Vitaly Napadow; Richard H Gracely; Daniel J Clauw Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-06-06 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: James J Mao; Deborah W Bruner; Carrie Stricker; John T Farrar; Sharon X Xie; Marjorie A Bowman; Donna Pucci; Xiaoyan Han; Angela DeMichele Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.279
Authors: Joshua Bauml; Sharon X Xie; John T Farrar; Marjorie A Bowman; Susan Q Li; Deborah Bruner; Angela DeMichele; Jun J Mao Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2014-11
Authors: Ting Bao; Susan Q Li; Josh L Dearing; Lauren A Piulson; Christina M Seluzicki; Robert Sidlow; Jun J Mao Journal: Acupunct Med Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Sheila N Garland; Sharon X Xie; Kate DuHamel; Ting Bao; Qing Li; Frances K Barg; Sarah Song; Philip Kantoff; Philip Gehrman; Jun J Mao Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: John R Keefe; Jay Amsterdam; Qing S Li; Irene Soeller; Robert DeRubeis; Jun J Mao Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 4.791