Literature DB >> 22528659

Can I help you? Physicians' expectations as predictor for treatment outcome.

C M Witt1, F Martins, S N Willich, L Schützler.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients' expectations of acupuncture treatment have widely been investigated; however, little focus has been on the physicians' expectations. We aimed to investigate (1) which patient characteristics lead to different expectations of physicians, and (2) whether physicians' expectations predict pain reduction and physical functioning in acupuncture and usual care treatment for chronic pain.
METHODS: In four large multi-centre, randomized trials patients with chronic pain were randomized to receive usual care alone or 10 additional acupuncture treatments. Data were pooled. Baseline characteristics of the three expectation groups were compared, and the physicians' expectation and its interaction with the treatment group were included in two linear regression models predicting pain reduction and change in physical functioning. Other patient characteristics were included for adjustment.
RESULTS: 9900 patients treated by 2781 physicians were analysed. Age, education and disease-related variables differed in the expectation groups. There was no interaction between treatment group and expectation. Patients, for whom the physicians had expected substantial improvement, showed more pain reduction (p < 0.001) and better physical functioning (p < 0.001) than patients for whom moderate improvement was expected. No significant differences were found between expected moderate and expected lack of success. However, the proportion of explained variance that was due to physicians' expectations was small considering total explained variance.
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' high expectations at baseline predict better outcome, independent of the treatment. Since we adjusted for several patient variables including duration and severity of disease, this cannot be explained by prognostic factors only. Other explanations are discussed and recommended for future research.
© 2012 European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain Chapters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22528659     DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00152.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Pain        ISSN: 1090-3801            Impact factor:   3.931


  13 in total

Review 1.  The Role of Psychosocial Processes in the Development and Maintenance of Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Robert R Edwards; Robert H Dworkin; Mark D Sullivan; Dennis C Turk; Ajay D Wasan
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.820

Review 2.  Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes.

Authors:  S M Meints; R R Edwards
Journal:  Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 5.067

3.  Spinal manipulative therapy-specific changes in pain sensitivity in individuals with low back pain (NCT01168999).

Authors:  Joel E Bialosky; Steven Z George; Maggie E Horn; Donald D Price; Roland Staud; Michael E Robinson
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2013-10-27       Impact factor: 5.820

Review 4.  Patient phenotyping in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

Authors:  Robert R Edwards; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Martin S Angst; Raymond Dionne; Roy Freeman; Per Hansson; Simon Haroutounian; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Nadine Attal; Ralf Baron; Joanna Brell; Shay Bujanover; Laurie B Burke; Daniel Carr; Amy S Chappell; Penney Cowan; Mila Etropolski; Roger B Fillingim; Jennifer S Gewandter; Nathaniel P Katz; Ernest A Kopecky; John D Markman; George Nomikos; Linda Porter; Bob A Rappaport; Andrew S C Rice; Joseph M Scavone; Joachim Scholz; Lee S Simon; Shannon M Smith; Jeffrey Tobias; Tina Tockarshewsky; Christine Veasley; Mark Versavel; Ajay D Wasan; Warren Wen; David Yarnitsky
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 7.926

5.  Non-specific mechanisms in orthodox and CAM management of low back pain (MOCAM): theoretical framework and protocol for a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Katherine Bradbury; Miznah Al-Abbadey; Dawn Carnes; Borislav D Dimitrov; Susan Eardley; Carol Fawkes; Jo Foster; Maddy Greville-Harris; J Matthew Harvey; Janine Leach; George Lewith; Hugh MacPherson; Lisa Roberts; Laura Parry; Lucy Yardley; Felicity L Bishop
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  What techniques might be used to harness placebo effects in non-malignant pain? A literature review and survey to develop a taxonomy.

Authors:  Felicity L Bishop; Beverly Coghlan; Adam Wa Geraghty; Hazel Everitt; Paul Little; Michelle M Holmes; Dionysis Seretis; George Lewith
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 7.  Behavioral, Psychological, Neurophysiological, and Neuroanatomic Determinants of Pain.

Authors:  Samantha M Meints; Robert R Edwards; Christopher Gilligan; Kristin L Schreiber
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 6.558

8.  Getting started with taiji: investigating students expectations and teachers appraisals of taiji beginners courses.

Authors:  Marko Nedeljkovic; Christina Bürgler; Petra H Wirtz; Roland Seiler; Konrad M Streitberger; Brigitte Ausfeld-Hafter
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2012-11-13       Impact factor: 2.629

9.  Patient Perceptions of Expression of Empathy From Chinese Medicine Clinicians in a Chinese Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Vincent C H Chung; Benjamin H K Yip; Ellen L M Yu; Siya Liu; Robin S T Ho; Regina W S Sit; Albert W N Leung; Justin C Y Wu; Samuel Y S Wong
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Does different information disclosure on placebo control affect blinding and trial outcomes? A case study of participant information leaflets of randomized placebo-controlled trials of acupuncture.

Authors:  Soyeon Cheon; Hi-Joon Park; Younbyoung Chae; Hyangsook Lee
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.