Search

ImportanceUnderstanding treatment expectations of patients and their clinicians is of great importance in improving personalized medical services and enhancing patient safety systems.ObjectiveTo investigate treatment expectations of patients and their clinicians and compare differences between both, by using a pair of validated structured assessment tools covering three key aspects/dimensions of clinical interests.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-center cross-sectional study was conducted at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in China. The study enrolled patients aged 16 years and older receiving inpatient care and their clinicians. Patient recruitment was conducted from March 2023 to November 2023.AssessmentsIn addition to demographic and clinical characteristics, this study employed two validated structured assessment tools to evaluate treatment expectations among patients and their clinicians: the Hospitalized Patients’ Expectations for Treatment Scale-Patient version (HOPE-P) and its counterpart, the Hospitalized Patients’ Expectations for Treatment Scale-Clinician version (HOPE-C).ResultsA total of 233 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.3 [15.1] years; 108 [46.4%] female) along with their clinicians, who numbered 75 in total were enrolled in this study. The distribution of total scores for HOPE-P and HOPE-C displayed similar patterns, with most scores concentrated in the higher range (above 50% of the full score). The mean HOPE-P total score was higher than that of HOPE-C (mean [SD] score, 38.78 [4.86] vs 37.49 [4.32]; t = 3.12, P = 0.002). In Dimension 2, the HOPE-P score was higher than HOPE-C (23.67 [3.20] vs 21.72 [3.03]; t = 6.98, P < 0.001). However, in Dimensions 1 and 3, HOPE-P scored lower than HOPE-C (13.37 [2.44] vs 13.84 [1.73]; t = -2.384, P < 0.018; 1.74 [1.14] vs 1.94 [1.00]; t = -2.00, P = 0.047). Certain demographic and clinical characteristics led to variations in patients’ treatment expectations, including marital status, monthly family income, and smoking history.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study revealed significant differences between patients’ and doctors’ treatment expectations. Notably, it highlighted the need for clinicians to focus on rationalizing patients’ expectations concerning treatment outcomes.Trial Registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry IdentifierChiCTR2300075262.

Aim: Prior research has indicated a connection between CD4+ T cells and the development of anxiety, but the specific CD4+ T cell subsets linked to anxiety disorders remain uncertain. Our study seeks to investigate the relationship between distinct CD4+ T cell subsets and anxiety, as well as to explore whether CD4+ T cell subsets mediate the effect of chronic psychological stress on anxiety. Methods: 56 eligible matched participants were recruited in Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The diagnosis was made based on DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. The severity of anxiety and depression symptoms was assessed using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, respectively. The Life Events Scale (LES) evaluated the chronic stress level. CD4+ T cell subsets were characterized using multiparametric flow cytometry. To assess the impact of CD4+ T cells on the effect of chronic psychological stress on anxiety, Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis was employed. Results: We discovered fifteen notably distinct CD4+ T-cell subsets in anxiety disorder patients compared to healthy controls. Multiple linear regression analysis unveiled an association between anxiety severity and CD27+CD45RA− Th cells, CD27+CD28+ Tregs, and the total Life Events Scale (LES) score. The PLS-SEM analysis demonstrated that CD4+ T cell subsets and LES could explain 80.2% of the variance in anxiety. Furthermore, it was observed that CD27+CD28+ Th/Treg cells acted as inverse mediators of the effects of LES on anxiety (P = 0.031). Conclusions: Drug naïve anxiety disorder patients exhibited significant alterations in numerous CD4+ T-cell subsets. Specifically, the memory subset of CD27+CD45RA− Th cells and the naïve subset of CD27+CD28+ Treg cells were found to be independent factors associated with the severity of anxiety. Additionally, the CD27+CD28+ Th and Treg cell subsets played a significant mediating role in the influence of long-term psychological stress on anxiety.

ObjectivePatient safety management systems in general hospitals require a comprehensive tool for assessing the expectations of inpatients across different wards. This study aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a new scale, the hospitalized patients’ expectations for treatment scale-clinician version (HOPE-C), to meet this requirement.MethodsWe interviewed 35 experts and 10 inpatients while developing the HOPE-C scale. The scale was initially designed with three dimensions: clinicians’ expectations regarding doctor-patient communication, clinicians’ expectations regarding treatment outcome, and clinicians’ expectations regarding disease management. We recruited 200 inpatients from a general hospital in China. At the same time, 51 clinicians were assigned to the enrolled patients who completed the HOPE-C to examine the reliability, validity, and psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire. We applied item analysis, assessed construct validity, evaluated internal consistency, and conducted a test-retest reliability analysis over 7 days.ResultsBoth exploratory and confirmatory analyses supported a 2-dimensional structure, comprising doctor-patient communication expectations and treatment outcome expectations, with favorable model fit parameters (root mean square residual [RMR] = 0.042, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.049, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.989, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = 0.984). Item analysis demonstrated appropriate item design (r = 0.744–0.961). The scale exhibited strong internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α values of 0.884, 0.816, and 0.840 for the overall scale, the doctor-patient communication expectation subscale, and the treatment outcome expectation subscale, respectively. The 7-day test-retest reliability was 0.996 (p < 0.001).ConclusionOur findings suggest that the HOPE-C is a reliable and valid assessment tool for measuring the expectations of inpatients in general hospitals. It effectively identifies patients’ expectations concerning doctor-patient communication and treatment outcomes.