Treatment expectations of patients and clinicians: a cross-sectional study.

Importance: Understanding treatment expectations of patients and their clinicians is of great importance in improving personalized medical services and enhancing patient safety systems. Objective: To 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 participants: This 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. Assessments: In 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). Results: A 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 relevance: This 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 Identifier: ChiCTR2300075262.

Utilizing plasma drug levels and genetic testing to achieve optimal treatment response in a patient with treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder.

We report the case of a Chinese male with schizoaffective disorder, an active smoker and a nonresponder to clozapine (600 mg daily). Therapeutic clozapine monitoring was analyzed, revealing a low concentration-dose ratio. A pharmacogenetic test showed that the patient had the CYP1A2*1F/*1F genotype, indicating an ultra-rapid clozapine metabolizer. In combination with fluvoxamine, a CYP1A2 enzyme inhibitor, clozapine plasma concentrations approached the reference range and achieved clinical improvement. This case demonstrates how pharmacogenetics can help understand the value of therapeutic drug monitoring to enhance the treatment of refractory schizoaffective disorder.

Esketamine vs Midazolam in Boosting the Efficacy of Oral Antidepressants for Major Depressive Disorder: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Loss of a previously effective response while still using adequate antidepressant treatment occurs in a relatively high proportion of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD); therefore, there is a need to develop novel effective treatment strategies. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of a single subanesthetic dose of esketamine in boosting the efficacy of oral antidepressants for treating fluctuating antidepressant response in MDD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, double-blind, midazolam-controlled pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted at Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University in China. The study enrolled participants aged 18 years and older with fluctuating antidepressant response, defined as patients with MDD experiencing fluctuating symptoms after symptom relief and stabilization. Patient recruitment was conducted from August 2021 to January 2022, and participants were followed-up for 6 weeks. Data were analyzed as intention-to-treat from July to September 2022. Interventions: All participants in the esketamine-treated group received intravenous esketamine at 0.2 mg/kg in 40 minutes. Participants in the midazolam control group received intravenous midazolam at 0.045 mg/kg in 40 minutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the response rate at 2 weeks, defined as a 50% reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Secondary outcomes included response rate at 6 weeks, remission rates at 2 and 6 weeks, and change in MADRS and Clinical Global Impression-Severity score from baseline to 6 weeks; remission was defined by a MADRS score of 10 or lower. Results: A total of 30 patients (median [IQR] age, 28.0 [24.0-40.0] years; 17 [56.7%] female) were randomized, including 15 patients randomized to midazolam and 15 patients randomized to esketamine; 29 patients completed the study. Response rates at 2 weeks were significantly higher in the esketamine-treated group than in the midazolam control group (10 patients [66.7%] vs 1 patient [6.7%]; P < .001). Participants treated with esketamine experienced significantly greater reduction in MADRS score from baseline to 2 weeks compared with those treated with midazolam (mean [SD] reduction, 15.7 [1.5] vs 3.1 [1.3]; P < .001). No serious adverse events were observed in this trial, and no psychotogenic effects and clinically significant manic symptoms were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This pilot randomized clinical trial found that a single subanesthetic dose of esketamine could boost the efficacy of oral antidepressants in treating fluctuating antidepressant response, with a good safety profile. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2100050335.

Development and psychometric validation of the hospitalized patients' expectations for treatment scale-patient version.

Objectives: A general expectation measurement of inpatients across wards is needed in the patient safety management systems of general hospitals. This study developed and psychometrically validated a new scale fulfilling the requirements above: the Hospitalized Patients' Expectations for Treatment Scale-Patient version (HOPE-P). Methods: A total of 35 experts and ten inpatients were interviewed during the formulation of the HOPE-P scale, which was initially designed with three dimensions: doctor-patient communication expectations, treatment outcome expectations, and disease management expectancy. We recruited 210 inpatients from a general hospital in China and explored the reliability, validity, and psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire. Item analysis, construct validity, internal consistency and 7-day test-retest reliability analysis were applied. Results: Exploratory and confirmatory analyses supported a 2-dimension (doctor-patient communication expectation and treatment outcome expectation) structure with satisfactory model fit parameters (root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.035, a root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.072, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.984, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.970). Item analysis revealed an appropriate item design (r = 0.573-0.820). The scale exhibited good internal consistency, with Cronbach's α of 0.893, 0.761, and 0.919 for the overall scale, the doctor-patient communication expectation subscale, and the treatment outcome expectation subscale, respectively. The 7-day test-retest reliability was 0.782 (p < .001). Conclusion: Our results indicated that the HOPE-P is a reliable and valid assessment tool to measure the expectations of general hospital inpatients, with a strong capacity to recognize patients' expectations regarding doctor-patient communication and treatment outcomes.

Development and psychometric validation of the hospitalized patients' expectations for treatment scale-clinician version.

Objective: Patient 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. Methods: We 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. Results: Both 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). Conclusion: Our 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.

Convergence mechanism of mindfulness intervention in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Clues from current evidence.

This paper reviews the underlying evidence for various aspects of the convergence mechanism of mindfulness intervention in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). There may be compatibility among various ADHD remission models and the therapeutic mechanism of mindfulness intervention in ADHD may be mainly via the convergence mechanism. However, neuroimaging-based analysis of the mechanisms of mindfulness intervention in treating ADHD is lacking. Differences in the efficacy of various subtypes of mindfulness intervention, and corresponding specific imaging changes need further investigation. Future research may focus on the neuroimaging features of specific mindfulness intervention subtypes.

A Borderless Solution Is Needed for A Borderless Complexity, Like COVID-19, the Universal Invader.

This chapter briefly describes the universal intricacies caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, from the ineffectiveness of distance measures, the massive economic impacts, and the severe mental health challenges to the failure of finding a vaccine, a therapeutic agent or even accurately diagnosing the infection. The entire world is suffering, but every country is trying to combat this pandemic individually, and this deed is the main barrier that prevents reaching a peaceful end.