4.7 Review

What do patients expect of psychiatric services? A systematic and critical review of empirical studies

Journal

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
Volume 52, Issue 7, Pages 985-998

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00210-0

Keywords

expectation; psychiatric services; patients

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The article reviews literature concerning patients' expectations of psychiatric care. Early research (pre-1980) is outlined, followed by a systematic review of 21 studies fulfilling specific inclusion criteria from 1980 onwards. Overall, patients expected to improve as a result of psychiatric treatment, and had higher expectations of the helpfulness of psychological and combined treatments than other interventions. Few studies considered expectations of the process of psychiatric cars or determinants of expectations. The majority of studies focused on examining the relation between expectations and outcomes. There were indications that expectations of improvement were linked to clinical outcomes, although the relationship appeared to be complex. There was also some evidence that when expectations of the process of care were incongruent with the service provided, outcomes were poorer. The findings of studies in the systematic review were generally congruent with earlier work (pre-1980), although expectations of improvement appeared to be higher in the later studies. Interventions to prepare patients for what to expect were found to have beneficial effects on attendance, satisfaction and the accuracy of expectations about the process of psychiatric care. Future research should focus on developing valid and reliable measures for use in different settings, and on determining the mechanism by which expectations may relate to outcomes, including clinical outcomes, attendance and satisfaction. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available