BACKGROUND: A patient's response to treatment may be influenced by the expectations that the patient has before initiating treatment. In the context of clinical trials, the influence of participant expectancy may blur the distinction between real and sham treatments, reducing statistical power to detect specific treatment effects. There is therefore a need for a tool that prospectively predicts expectancy effects on treatment outcomes across a wide range of treatment modalities. PURPOSE: To help assess expectancy effects, we created the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale (SETS): an instrument for measuring positive and negative treatment expectancies. Internal reliability of the instrument was tested in Study 1. Criterion validity of the instrument (convergent, discriminant, and predictive) was assessed in Studies 2 and 3. METHODS: The instrument was developed using 200 participants in Study 1. Reliability and validity assessments were made with an additional 423 participants in Studies 2 and 3. RESULTS: The final six-item SETS contains two subscales: positive expectancy (α = 0.81-0.88) and negative expectancy (α = 0.81-0.86). The subscales predict a significant amount of outcome variance (between 12% and 18%) in patients receiving surgical and pain interventions. The SETS is simple to administer, score, and interpret. CONCLUSION: The SETS may be used in clinical trials to improve statistical sensitivity for detecting treatment differences or in clinical settings to identify patients with poor treatment expectancies.
BACKGROUND: A patient's response to treatment may be influenced by the expectations that the patient has before initiating treatment. In the context of clinical trials, the influence of participant expectancy may blur the distinction between real and sham treatments, reducing statistical power to detect specific treatment effects. There is therefore a need for a tool that prospectively predicts expectancy effects on treatment outcomes across a wide range of treatment modalities. PURPOSE: To help assess expectancy effects, we created the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale (SETS): an instrument for measuring positive and negative treatment expectancies. Internal reliability of the instrument was tested in Study 1. Criterion validity of the instrument (convergent, discriminant, and predictive) was assessed in Studies 2 and 3. METHODS: The instrument was developed using 200 participants in Study 1. Reliability and validity assessments were made with an additional 423 participants in Studies 2 and 3. RESULTS: The final six-item SETS contains two subscales: positive expectancy (α = 0.81-0.88) and negative expectancy (α = 0.81-0.86). The subscales predict a significant amount of outcome variance (between 12% and 18%) in patients receiving surgical and pain interventions. The SETS is simple to administer, score, and interpret. CONCLUSION: The SETS may be used in clinical trials to improve statistical sensitivity for detecting treatment differences or in clinical settings to identify patients with poor treatment expectancies.
Authors: Marissa S Heirich; Lanja S Sinjary; Maisa S Ziadni; Sandra Sacks; Alexandra S Buchanan; Sean C Mackey; Jordan L Newmark Journal: Pain Med Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Robert G Rychtarik; Neil B McGillicuddy; George D Papandonatos; Robert B Whitney; Gerard J Connors Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2017-02-02
Authors: Jose L Mattos; Luke Rudmik; Rodney J Schlosser; Timothy L Smith; Jess C Mace; Jeremiah Alt; Zachary M Soler Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.858
Authors: Regina Wing Shan Sit; Keith Kwok Wai Chan; Dan Zou; Dicken Cheong Chun Chan; Benjamin Hon Kei Yip; Daisy Dexing Zhang; Ying Ho Chan; Vincent Chi Ho Chung; Kenneth Dean Reeves; Samuel Yeung Shan Wong Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Filipa Ladeira; Marcelo Mendonça; André Caetano; Manuel Salavisa; Henrique Delgado; Ana Sofia Correia; Miguel Viana-Baptista Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 3.307
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