Does how you do depend on how you think you'll do? A systematic review of the evidence for a relation between patients' recovery expectations and health outcomes.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Most clinicians would probably agree that what patients think will happen can influence what does happen over the clinical course. Yet despite useful narrative reviews on expectancy of therapeutic gain and the mechanisms by which expectancy can affect health outcomes, we were unable to locate a systematic review of the predictive relation between patients' recovery expectations and their health outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for English-language articles published from 1966 to June 1998 with a title or abstract containing at least 1 of the medical subject headings (MeSH) "self-assessment," "self-concept" or "attitude to health," or the MeSH subheading "psychology," and at least 1 word from each of 3 sets: "patient" and similar words; a form of "expectation," "belief" or "prediction"; and a form of "recover," "outcome," "survival" or "improve." Relevant articles contained original research data, measured patients' recovery expectations, independently measured a subsequent health outcome and analyzed the relation between expectations and outcomes. We assessed internal validity using quality criteria for prognostic studies based on 6 categories (case definition; patient selection; extent of follow-up; objective outcome criteria; measurement and reporting of recovery expectations; and analysis). RESULTS: A total of 1243 titles or abstracts were identified through the computer search, and 93 full-text articles were retrieved. Forty-one of these articles met the relevance criteria, along with 4 additional articles identified through other means. Agreement beyond chance on quality assessments of 18 randomly selected articles was high (kappa = 0.87, p = 0.001). Sixteen of the 45 articles provided moderate-quality evidence and included a range of clinical conditions and study designs; 15 of the 16 showed that positive expectations were associated with better health outcomes. The strength of the relation depended on the clinical conditions and the measured used. INTERPRETATION: Consistency across the studies reviewed and the evidence they provided support the need for clinicians to clarify patients' expectations and to assist them in having appropriate expectations of recovery. The understanding of the nature, extent and clinical implications of the relation between expectations and outcomes could be enhanced by more conceptually driven and methodologically sound research, including evaluations of intervention effectiveness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,027 | 0,145 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».