4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Development of the Stanford Expectations of Treatment Scale (SETS): A tool for measuring patient outcome expectancy in clinical trials

期刊

CLINICAL TRIALS
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 767-776

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1740774512465064

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chris Redlich Endowment in Pain Research
  2. NIH [K24 DA029262, R00 DA023609]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 (alpha = 0.81-0.88) and negative expectancy (alpha = 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. Clinical Trials 2012; 9: 767-776. http://ctj.sagepub.com

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据