Search

IntroductionOverall, 20%–30% of women with endometriosis report endometriosis-related disability after successful laparoscopy. This indicates a potential impact of psychological factors, such as expectations, on treatment outcomes. It is already known that expectations determine treatment outcomes in various health conditions, such as cardiologic or gynaecology. Therefore, we investigate the impact of expectations and other psychological factors on patients’ course of treatment outcomes after laparoscopy.Methods and analysisA longitudinal mixed-methods study with N=300 women treated at a specialised centre of surgical endoscopy and endometriosis will be conducted with one preoperative and eight postoperative assessments of endometriosis-related disability and a priori specified predictors such as expectations.Additionally, two subsamples (each ~n=30) will be either interviewed about their endometriosis-related disability, expectations, and experiences of laparoscopy before and after surgery or asked once per day for 30 consecutive days using ambulatory assessments. Quantitative data will be analysed using multilevel modelling for longitudinal data. Structural content analysis will be used for qualitative data.DiscussionTo optimise treatment for women with endometriosis, it is essential to understand how treatment expectations and other psychological and medical factors influence treatment outcomes after laparoscopy.Ethics and disseminationThe Ethics Committee of the Psychotherapeutenkammer Hamburg, Germany, gave ethical approval (ROXWELL-2021-HH, 25 June 2021).Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05019612).

IntroductionUlcerative colitis (UC) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are distressing chronic diseases associated with abdominal pain and altered bowel habits of unknown aetiology. Results from previous studies indicate that, across both diseases, increased levels of illness-related anxiety and dysfunctional symptom expectations contribute to symptom persistence. Thus, comparing both disorders with regard to common and disease-specific factors in the persistence and modification of gastrointestinal symptoms seems justified. Our primary hypothesis is that persistent gastrointestinal symptoms in UC and IBS can be improved by modifying dysfunctional symptom expectations and illness-related anxiety using expectation management strategies.Methods and analysisTo assess the extent to which persistent somatic symptoms are modifiable in adult patients with UC and IBS, we will conduct an observer-blinded, three-arm randomised controlled trial. A total of 117 patients with UC and 117 patients with IBS will be randomised into three groups of equal size: targeted expectation management aiming to reduce illness-related anxiety and dysfunctional symptom expectations in addition to standard care (SC, intervention 1), non-specific supportive treatment in addition to SC (intervention 2) or SC only (control). Both active intervention groups will comprise three individual online consultation sessions and a booster session after 3 months. The primary outcome is baseline to postinterventional change in gastrointestinal symptom severity.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Association (2020-10198-BO-ff). The study will shed light onto the efficacy and mechanisms of action of a targeted expectation management intervention for persistent gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with UC and IBS. Furthermore, the detailed analysis of the complex biopsychosocial mechanisms will allow the further advancement of aetiological models and according evidence-based intervention strategies.Trial registration numberISRCTN30800023.

IntroductionPersistent somatic symptoms (PSS) are highly prevalent in all areas of medicine; they are disabling for patients and costly for society. The subjective symptom burden often correlates poorly with the underlying disease severity, and patients’ needs for effective treatment are far from being met. Initial evidence indicates that, in addition to disease-specific pathophysiological processes, psychological factors such as expectations, somatosensory amplification and prior illness experiences contribute to symptom persistence in functional as well as in somatic diseases. However, prospective studies investigating the transition from acute to chronic somatic symptoms, integrating pathophysiological, psychological and social factors, are scarce. A better understanding of the multifactorial mechanisms of symptom persistence is crucial for developing targeted mechanism-based interventions for effective prevention and treatment of PSS. Thus, the overall aim of the interdisciplinary SOMACROSS research unit is to identify generic and disease-specific risk factors and aetiological mechanisms of symptom persistence across a range of diseases.Methods and analysisSeven projects will investigate risk factors and mechanisms of symptom persistence in a total of 3916 patients across 10 medical conditions. All study designs are prospective and share common assessment points, core instruments and outcome variables to allow comparison and validation of results across projects and conditions. Research will focus on the identification of generic and disease-specific mechanisms associated with unfavourable symptom course. The development of a multivariate prediction model will facilitate the understanding of the course of PSS across diseases.Ethics and disseminationAll individual SOMACROSS studies were approved by the ethics committees of the Medical Chambers Hamburg and Münster, Germany. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, scientific conferences and the involvement of relevant stakeholders, patients and the lay public. This interdisciplinary research unit will fundamentally contribute to earlier recognition of patients at risk, and to the development of prevention and tailored treatment concepts for PSS.

ObjectivesDuring serious illness, open communication with caregivers can ensure high-quality care. Without end-of-life communication, caregivers may become surrogates and decision-makers without knowing the patient’s preferences. However, expectations and fears may influence the initiation of communication. The present study investigates differences between palliative patients with cancer and caregivers regarding expectations of end-of-life communication, end-of-life fears and experiences with end-of-life communication.DesignA cross-sectional study using a semi-structured interview and a paper-based questionnaireSettingUniversity Hospital in Germany.Participants151 participants: 85 palliative cancer patients (mean age: 62.8 years, 65.9% male) and 66 caregivers (mean age: 56.3 years, 28.8% male).Primary and secondary outcome measuresExpectations, end-of-life fears and experiences of end-of-life discussions.ResultsPatients and caregivers wish for the patient to be self-determined. In general, participants reported more positive than negative expectations of end-of-life discussions. Importantly, concerns about emotionally burdening other person was rated much higher in an informal context than a professional context (F(1,149)=316 958, pp²=0.680), even though the emotional relief was expected to be higher (F(1,149)=46.115, pp²=0.236). Caregivers reported more fears about the last period of life and more fears about end-of-life discussions than palliative patients, whereas palliative patients tended to avoid the topics of death and dying to a greater extent.ConclusionsThere seems to exist a ‘self-other’ asymmetry: palliative patients and their caregivers expect substantial personal relief when openly talking about end-of-life issues, but also expect the other person to be burdened by such communication. Professionals repeatedly need to initiate end-of-life communication.

ObjectivesWe aimed to develop a digital intervention to support antidepressant discontinuation in UK primary care that is scalable, accessible, safe and feasible. In this paper, we describe the development using a theory, evidence and person-based approach.DesignIntervention development using a theory, evidence and person-based approach.SettingPrimary Care in the South of England.ParticipantsFifteen participants with a range of antidepressant experience took part in ‘think aloud’ interviews for intervention optimisation.InterventionOur digital intervention prototype (called ‘ADvisor’) was developed on the basis of a planning phase consisting of qualitative and quantitative reviews, an in-depth qualitative study, the development of guiding principles and a theory-based behavioural analysis. Our optimisation phase consisted of ‘think aloud’ interviews where the intervention was iteratively refined.ResultsThe qualitative systematic review and in-depth qualitative study highlighted the centrality of fear of depression relapse as a key barrier to discontinuation. The quantitative systematic review showed that psychologically informed approaches such as cognitive–behavioural therapy were associated with greater rates of discontinuation than simple advice to reduce. Following a behavioural diagnosis based on the behaviour change wheel, social cognitive theory provided a theoretical basis for the intervention. The intervention was optimised on the basis of think aloud interviews, where participants suggested they like the flexibility of the system and found it reassuring. Changes were made to the tone of the material and the structure was adjusted based on this qualitative feedback.Conclusions‘ADvisor’ is a theory, evidence and person-based digital intervention designed to support antidepressant discontinuation. The intervention was perceived as helpful and reassuring in optimisation interviews. Trials are now needed to determine the feasibility, clinical and cost-effectiveness of this approach.

ObjectivePatients’ expectations—as a central mechanism of placebo and nocebo effects—are an important predictor of health outcomes. However, the lack of a way to assess expectations across different settings restricts progress in understanding the role of expectations and to quantify their importance in medical and psychological treatments. The aim of this study was to develop a theory-based, generic, multidimensional measure assessing patient expectations of medical and psychological treatments.DesignThe Treatment Expectation Questionnaire (TEX-Q) was developed based on the integrative model of expectations and a systematic literature review of treatment expectation scales. After creating a comprehensive item pool, the scale was further refined by use of expert ratings and patient interviews.SettingPatients were recruited in primary care at two hospitals in Hamburg, Germany.Participants13 scientific experts participated in the expert survey. 11 patients waiting for psychological or surgical treatments participated in the qualitative interviews.ResultsThe 2×2×2 multidimensional structure of the TEX-Q assesses two expectation constructs (probabilistic vs value-based) across two outcome domains with two valences (direct benefits and adverse events, broader positive and negative impact), plus process and behavioural control expectations. We examined 583 items from 38 scales identified in the systematic review and developed 78 initial items. Content validity was then rated by experts according to item fit and comprehensibility. The best 53 items were further evaluated for comprehensibility, acceptability, phrasing preference and understanding by interviewing patients prior to treatment using the ‘think aloud’ technique. This resulted in a first 35-item version of the TEX-Q.ConclusionsThe TEX-Q is a generic, multidimensional measure to assess patient expectations of medical and psychological treatments and allows comparison of the impact of multidimensional expectations across different conditions. The final TEX-Q will be available after psychometric validation.

ObjectivesShared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of current decision-making processes beyond the dyadic physician–patient interaction.DesignCross-sectional qualitative study using participant observation with semistructured field notes, which were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon.Setting and participantsField notes from participant observations were collected at n=54 outpatient consultations and during two 1-week-long observations at two inpatient wards in different clinics of one comprehensive cancer centre in Germany.ResultsMost of the time, either one physician alone or a group of physicians made the treatment decisions. Patients were seldom actively involved. Patients who were ‘active’ (ie, asked questions, demanded participation, opposed treatment recommendations) facilitated shared decision-making. Time pressure, frequent alternation of responsible physicians and poor coordination of care were the main observed barriers for shared decision-making. We found high variation in decision-making behaviour between different physicians as well as the same physician with different patients.ConclusionMost of the time physicians made the treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was very rarely implemented in current routine cancer care. The entire decision-making process was not observed to follow the principles of shared decision-making. However, some aspects of shared decision-making were occasionally incorporated. Individual as well as organisational factors were found to influence the degree of shared decision-making. If future routine cancer care wishes to follow the principles of shared decision-making, strategies are needed to foster shared decision-making in routine cancer care.