Capacity to consent to psychotherapy: Reliability of the newly adapted German version of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment for psychotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients' capacity to consent to treatment (CCT) is a prerequisite for ethically sound informed consent in psychotherapy. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) is a reliable instrument for assessing CCT. A German version was adapted to the psychotherapeutical context (MacCAT-PT) to investigate its reliability and possible influences of age, education and prior experience with psychotherapy on CCT in a mixed clinical sample. METHODS: N = 108 patients with indication for psychotherapy were recruited. The MacCAT-PT was administered by trained psychologists, took 20 min on average and was rated by the administering psychologist and an independent rater. Reliability statistics were investigated and regression analyses were conducted on MacCAT-PT scores and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Sufficient to moderate inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.80) and internal consistency (α = 0.80) were found for the total sum score of the MacCAT-PT and its scales, Understanding (ICC = 0.79, α = 0.77), Reasoning (ICC = 0.57, α = 0.65) and Making a Choice (ICC = 0.57). Appreciation featured an unacceptable inter-rater reliability (ICC = -0.01). Regression analyses indicated no significant effects. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the MacCAT-PT is a reliable tool for assessing patients' overall CCT in psychotherapy. Psychometric properties of three scales were of good quality, while Appreciation needs to be reanalysed in patient samples with lower motivation for psychotherapy or limited CCT. The CCT may be suggested to be independent of age, education and prior experience. Future research should provide analyses focusing on structural and clinical validity in multiple clinical samples.

Development of the generic, multidimensional Treatment Expectation Questionnaire (TEX-Q) through systematic literature review, expert surveys and qualitative interviews.

OBJECTIVE: Patients' 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. DESIGN: The 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. SETTING: Patients were recruited in primary care at two hospitals in Hamburg, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: 13 scientific experts participated in the expert survey. 11 patients waiting for psychological or surgical treatments participated in the qualitative interviews. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.

Assessment of patient information needs: A systematic review of measures.

BACKGROUND: Providing patient information is a central aspect of patient-centered care. Fulfilling personal information needs has positive effects on several health-related outcomes. Measurement instruments help to identify individual information needs in an effective way. The present study gives an overview of existing information needs measures and further evaluates the quality of their psychometric properties and their psychometric studies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search on psychometric studies of measures that assess information needs in PubMed and Embase. Furthermore, we carried out a secondary search with reference and citation tracking of the included articles. Title, abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers for eligibility. We extracted data on content of the measures, validation samples and psychometric properties. In addition we rated the methodological quality with the COSMIN checklist and the quality of psychometric properties with the criteria of Terwee and colleagues. RESULTS: 24 studies on 21 measures were included. Most instruments assessed information needs of patients with cancer or cardiac diseases. The majority of the instruments were in English language and from western countries. Most studies included information on internal consistency and content validity. The ratings showed mixed results with clear deficiencies in the methodological quality of most studies. DISCUSSION: This is the first systematic review that summarized the existing evidence on measures on patient information needs using two instruments for a systematic quality assessment. The results show a need for more psychometric studies on existing measures. In addition, reporting on psychometric studies needs to be improved to be able to evaluate the reliability of the psychometric properties. Furthermore, we were not able to identify any measures on information needs for some frequent chronic diseases. Other methods to elicit information needs (e.g. open-ended interviews, question prompt sheets) could be considered as alternatives if sound measures are missing.