↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ Expectations Regarding Medical Treatment: A Critical Review of Concepts and Their Assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
184 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patients’ Expectations Regarding Medical Treatment: A Critical Review of Concepts and Their Assessment
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00233
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes A. C. Laferton, Tobias Kube, Stefan Salzmann, Charlotte J. Auer, Meike C. Shedden-Mora

Abstract

Patients' expectations in the context of medical treatment represent a growing area of research, with accumulating evidence suggesting their influence on health outcomes across a variety of medical conditions. However, the aggregation of evidence is complicated due to an inconsistent and disintegrated application of expectation constructs and the heterogeneity of assessment strategies. Therefore, based on current expectation concepts, this critical review provides an integrated model of patients' expectations in medical treatment. Moreover, we review existing assessment tools in the context of the integrative model of expectations and provide recommendations for improving future assessment. The integrative model includes expectations regarding treatment and patients' treatment-related behavior. Treatment and behavior outcome expectations can relate to aspects regarding benefits and side effects and can refer to internal (e.g., symptoms) and external outcomes (e.g., reactions of others). Furthermore, timeline, structural and process expectations are important aspects with respect to medical treatment. Additionally, generalized expectations such as generalized self-efficacy or optimism have to be considered. Several instruments assessing different aspects of expectations in medical treatment can be found in the literature. However, many were developed without conceptual standardization and psychometric evaluation. Moreover, they merely assess single aspects of expectations, thus impeding the integration of evidence regarding the differential aspects of expectations. As many instruments assess treatment-specific expectations, they are not comparable between different conditions. To generate a more comprehensive understanding of expectation effects in medical treatments, we recommend that future research should apply standardized, psychometrically evaluated measures, assessing multidimensional aspects of patients' expectations that are applicable across various medical treatments. In the future, more research is needed on the interrelation of different expectation concepts as well as on factors influencing patients' expectations of illness and treatment. Considering the importance of patients' expectations for health outcomes across many medical conditions, an integrated understanding and assessment of such expectations might facilitate interventions aiming to optimize patients' expectations in order to improve health outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 285 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 44 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 14%
Student > Master 39 14%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 45 16%
Unknown 74 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 84 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 9%
Neuroscience 9 3%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 23 8%
Unknown 90 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,322,542
of 24,776,799 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,601
of 33,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,110
of 315,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#110
of 487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,776,799 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 487 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.