ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2024
Great expectations: A multisite, randomized controlled open-label trial of a novel patient expectations communication tool.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Review
- Prehospital emergency services: expectations of patients and companions.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Great expectations: A multisite, randomized controlled open-label trial of a novel patient expectations communication tool.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In emergency medicine (EM), discerning patient expectations to inform patient-centered care poses unique challenges. We devised a novel questionnaire to facilitate clinicians' understanding of patients' expectations for their visit. Methods: We conducted a multisite, randomized controlled trial. A brief questionnaire soliciting patient expectations was developed through feedback from clinicians and patients. At the beginning of their visit, the intervention group patients completed the questionnaire and provided it to their treating clinician. The control group patients received standard care. Participants in both groups completed a survey at time of disposition assessing five satisfaction domains. The primary ordinal logistic regression analysis modeled the extent to which the intervention led to patient-reported improvement in clinician understanding of expectations with adjustment for demographic factors and site. Results: Among the 308 participants, 141 intervention and 123 control exit surveys were collected. In the primary analysis, the intervention group had 2.1 times greater odds of strongly agreeing that their clinician understood their expectations (odds ratio: 2.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 3.7, Conclusions: While more patients reported that their expectations were addressed when the novel tool was used, no significant difference was found for conventional satisfaction measures. Future studies may examine whether a tool to elicit patient expectations can lead to other improved outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.