The purpose of this study is to verify whether information on services would appear as a distinct dimension of satisfaction in a multidimensional scale. Data collection was performed in two phases: 263 patients received the original version of the questionnaire and 200 received an adapted version of the scale. The findings suggest that not only is it important to consider information as a distinct dimension of satisfaction but it is equally important to examine three categories, consisting of satisfaction with information on; patients’ problems/illness; distinct treatment components such as medication and psychotherapy; and patients’ treatment progress.

No abstract

The purpose of this study is to develop a scale in order to determine the informational needs deemed most important by psychiatric outpatients, and to determine their level of satisfaction with information received. The 'Patients' Perspective on Information Questionnaire' (PPIQ) scale was created and given to a volunteer sample of 86 psychiatric outpatients. The Client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ-8), assessing global satisfaction, was also completed to assess the convergent validity of the PPIQ-Satisfaction subscale. Internal consistency for the two PPIQ subscales (Information and Satisfaction) is excellent (alpha = 0.90 and 0.91). Convergent validity between the Satisfaction subscale and the CSQ is adequate (r = 0.5). The PPIQ reveals high importance ratings given to items such as 'side effects of medication' and 'confidentiality and access to chart'. Elevated satisfaction ratings are given to items from the conceptual category 'treatment information'. Dissatisfaction on the PPIQ is highest for components of 'information on service modality and organization'. The PPIQ appears to distinguish between information that is important to clients and their level of satisfaction with that information. Satisfaction on multiple components of information, such as treatment, service modality and organization, and clinical difficulties should be assessed to generate feedback to improve services.

To examine the relationship between preference for group psychotherapy and adherence to group cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for clients with panic disorder with agoraphobia (PDA), 109 participants experiencing PDA completed a questionnaire measuring preference for group treatment (PGTQ) before beginning CBT groups. A t test was used to compare preference scores for group treatment to investigate whether participants who completed treatment differed from those who abandoned treatment. Participants who completed group therapy expressed higher preference for group treatment than participants who dropped out of treatment (t[107] = 1.99; p < 0.05). The PGTQ-4 presented adequate psychometric properties. Reliability analyses of the items retained after factorization demonstrated an acceptable level of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.76). Preference for individual or group therapy appears to impact treatment retention for patients with PDA. Matching patients' preferences to the type of treatment modality used appears to be pertinent, especially for the treatment of anxiety disorders. In terms of practical implications, the rationale and benefits of group therapy should be explained to participants reluctant to engage in group therapy. Individual intervention or a combination of group and individual treatment could be considered for clients who are likely to drop out of group therapy.

For more than years, researchers have been interested in determining the impact of expectations on treatment outcome. Earlier studies mostly focused on two types of expectations prognostic and process expectations. "ims To review how four different types of expectations prognostic, process, anxiety expectancy and anxiety sensitivity contribute to psychotherapy outcome, and to the development of clinical disorders, especially anxiety. Conclusions First, the role of process and prognostic expectancies in clinical disorders and psychotherapy outcome should be clarified by addressing the methodological flaws of the earlier expectancy studies. Second, studies, especially those on anxiety disorders, may benefit from evaluating the four different types of expectations to determine their relative impact on outcome, and on the development and maintenance of these disorders. Third, possible links with other clinical disorders should be further explored. Finally, expectancies should be assessed prior to treatment and after several sessions to determine the extent to which the treatment's failure in modifying initial low expectancies contribute to a poor outcome.