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.

BackgroundMajor depression (MD) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Reduced heart rate variability (HRV) has been observed in MD. Given the predictive value of HRV for cardiovascular health, reduced HRV might be one physiological factor that mediates this association.MethodsThe purpose of this study was to provide up-to-date random-effects meta-analyses of studies which compare resting-state measures of HRV between unmedicated adults with MD and controls. Database search considered English and German literature to July 2018.ResultsA total of 21 studies including 2250 patients and 1982 controls were extracted. Significant differences between patients and controls were found for (i) frequency domains such as HF-HRV [Hedges' g = −0.318; 95% CI (−0.388 to −0.247)], LF-HRV (Hedges' g = −0.195; 95% CI (−0.332 to −0.059)], LF/HF-HRV (Hedges' g = 0.195; 95% CI (0.086–0.303)] and VLF-HRV (Hedges' g = −0.096; 95% CI (−0.179 to −0.013)), and for (ii) time-domains such as IBI (Hedges' g = −0.163; 95% CI (−0.304 to −0.022)], RMSSD (Hedges' g = −0.462; 95% CI (−0.612 to −0.312)] and SDNN (Hedges' g = −0.266; 95% CI (−0.431 to −0.100)].ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that all HRV-measures were lower in MD than in healthy controls and thus strengthens evidence for lower HRV as a potential cardiovascular risk factor in these patients.

BackgroundPlacebo effects contribute substantially to outcome in most fields of medicine. While clinical trials typically try to control or minimize these effects, the potential of placebo mechanisms to improve outcome is rarely used. Patient expectations about treatment efficacy and outcome are major mechanisms that contribute to these placebo effects. We aimed to optimize these expectations to improve outcome in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.MethodsIn a prospective three-arm randomized clinical trial with a 6 month follow-up, 124 patients scheduled for CABG surgery were randomized to either a brief psychological pre-surgery intervention to optimize outcome expectations (EXPECT); or a psychological control intervention focusing on emotional support and general advice, but not on expectations (SUPPORT); or to standard medical care (SMC). Interventions were kept brief to be feasible with a heart surgery environment; “dose” of therapy was identical for both pre-surgery interventions. Primary outcome was disability 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes comprised further clinical and immunological variables.ResultsPatients in the EXPECT group showed significantly larger improvements in disability (−12.6; −17.6 to −7.5) than the SMC group (−1.9; −6.6 to +2.7); patients in the SUPPORT group (−6.7; −11.8 to 1.7) did not differ from the SMC group. Comparing follow-up scores and controlling for baseline scores of EXPECT versus SUPPORT on the variable disability only revealed a trend in favor of the EXPECT group (P = 0.09). Specific advantages for EXPECT compared to SUPPORT were found for mental quality of life and fitness for work (hours per week). Both psychological pre-surgery interventions induced less pronounced increases in pro-inflammatory cytokine concentrations reflected by decreased interleukin-8 levels post-surgery compared to changes in SMC patients and lower interleukin-6 levels in patients of the EXPECT group at follow-up. Both pre-surgery interventions were characterized by great patient acceptability and no adverse effects were attributed to them. Considering the innovative nature of this approach, replication in larger, multicenter trials is needed.ConclusionsOptimizing patients’ expectations pre-surgery helps to improve outcome 6 months after treatment. This implies that making use of placebo mechanisms has the potential to improve long-term outcome of highly invasive medical interventions. Further studies are warranted to generalize this approach to other fields of medicine.Trial registrationEthical approval for the study was obtained from the IRB of the Medical School, University of Marburg, and the trial was registered at (NCT01407055) on July 25, 2011.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0767-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is associated with a wide clinical spectrum of skin manifestations, including urticarial, vesicular, vasculitic and chilblain‐like lesions. Recently, delayed skin reactions have been reported in 1% individuals following mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The exact pathophysiology and the risk factors still remain unclear. Patients and methods 6821 employees and patients were vaccinated at our institutions between February and June 2021. Every patient received two doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in our hospitals, and reported back in case of any side effects which were collected in our hospital managed database. Results Eleven of 6821 vaccinated patients (0.16%) developed delayed skin reactions after either the first or second dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Eight of 11 patients (73%) developed a rash after the first dose, while in 3/11 (27%), the rash occurred after the second dose. More females (9/11) were affected. Four of 11 patients required antihistamines, with two needing additional topical steroids. All the cutaneous manifestations resolved within 14 days. None of the skin reactions after the first dose of the vaccine prevented the administration of the second dose. There were no long-term cutaneous sequelae in any of the affected individuals. Conclusion Our data suggests that skin reactions after the use of mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are possible, but rare. Further studies need to be done to understand the pathophysiology of these lesions.

Purpose of Review To review the current state of preoperative psychological preparation to improve outcomes after cardiac surgery. Recent Findings Preoperative psychosocial factors are associated with short- and long-term outcomes after cardiac surgery. There are several approaches to optimize patients’ preoperative psychological status with promising effects on postoperative outcomes (e.g., less complications, improved quality of life). Preoperative psychological preparation often aims to improve patients’ knowledge or social support and to modify and optimize expectations and illness beliefs. Summary Preoperative psychological preparation is gaining importance for cardiac surgery. However, patients’ psychological status still does not get as much attention as it deserves. Preoperative psychological preparation seems to have positive effects on postoperative outcomes. Since overall evidence is still weak, further studies are warranted to understand which intervention works best for whom and why.