Search

There is an abundance of outcomes research for clinical hypnosis showing promising results. Nonetheless, hypnosis is still underutilized in clinical care. For a behavioral intervention to enter mainstream clinical care, efficacy needs to be demonstrated with exceptionally high quality of evidence, and its reporting needs to be complete and sufficiently clear to enable replication and clinical use. The present article provides best practice guidelines formulated by the Task Force for Establishing Efficacy Standards for Clinical Hypnosis for conducting and reporting clinical hypnosis research.The recommendations are presented in two tiers. Tier I recommendations include essential best practices, such as a call for the use of detailed research and intervention manuals, plans for and reporting of participant-education about hypnosis, the use of hypnotizability scales with good psychometric properties, and clear reporting of the hypnotizability measurement. Tier I also includes the sharing of intervention manuals, the reporting of the induction procedure, the labeling of the intervention for participants, and the definition of hypnosis used. Tier II includes preferred recommendations, calling for measurement of adherence to home practice, measurement of hypnotizability using scales with both subjective and behavioral measures of responsiveness, and the involvement of participants from the full hypnotizability spectrum. Tier II also includes the assessment of variables related to proposed mechanisms of action, the reporting of participants prior hypnosis experiences, and the relationship of expectancies and treatment outcomes.This list of recommendations will be useful for researchers, reviewers, and journal editors alike when conducting, reporting, or evaluating studies involving clinical hypnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

To identify medical phrases utilized by the critical care team that may have an unintended impact on the critically ill patient, we administered an anonymous survey to multi-professional critical care team members. We elicited examples of imprecise language that may have a negative emotional impact on the critically ill. Of the 1600 providers surveyed, 265 offered 1379 examples (912 unique) which were clustered into 5 categories. Medical jargon (eg, "riding the vent") was most prevalent (n = 549). There were 217 negative suggestions (eg, "you will feel a stick and a burn"). Hyperboles (eg, "black cloud") were common (n = 198) while homonyms (ie "he fibbed") accounted for 150 examples. Phrases such as "code brown in there" were categorized as metonyms (n = 144). 121 metaphors/similes (eg, "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic") were provided. Phrases that have the potential to negatively impact critically ill patient perceptions are commonplace in critical care practice. Whether these everyday communication habits lead to an unintended nocebo effect on mental health outcomes of the critically ill deserves further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Hungarian Medical Journal / Orvosi Hetilap is the property of Akademiai Kiado and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)