Background: Multiple studies have shown that people who have experienced a serious health problem such as an injury tend to overrate the quality of health they had before that event. The main objective of this study was to test whether the phenomenon of respondents overrating their past health can also be observed in people from the general population. A second aim was to test whether habitual optimism is indeed focused on events in the future.Method: A representatively selected community sample from (...) Leipzig, Germany was examined. Respondents were asked to assess their current health, their past health, and their expected future health on a 0–100 scale. In addition, the study participants completed several questionnaires on specific aspects of physical and mental health.Results: Respondents of all age groups assessed their health as having been better in the past than it was at present. Moreover, they also assessed their earlier state of health more positively than people 5 years younger did their current state. Habitual optimism was associated with respondents having more positive expectations of how healthy they will be in 5 years time, but the correlation with their assessments of their current health was nearly as high.Conclusion: Highly positive scores of retrospectively assessed health among people who have experienced a health problem cannot totally be accounted for by a response to that health problem. (shrink)

IntroductionThe Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully therapy for patients with advanced cancer was tested against a supportive psycho-oncological counseling intervention in a randomized controlled trial. We investigated whether CALM was delivered as intended ; whether CALM therapists with less experience in psycho-oncological care show higher adherence scores; and whether potential overlapping treatment elements between CALM and SPI can be identified.MethodsTwo trained and blinded raters assessed on 19 items four subscales of the Treatment Integrity Scale covering treatment domains of CALM. A (...) random sample of 150 audio recordings were rated on a three-point Likert scale with 1 = “adherent to some extent,” 2 = “adherent to a sufficient extent,” 3 = “very adherent.”ResultsAll 19 treatment elements were applied, but in various frequencies. CALM therapists most frequently explored symptoms and/or relationship to health care providers and allowed expression of sadness and anxiety about the progression of disease. The exploration of CALM treatment element SC_1 was most frequently implemented in a satisfactory or excellent manner, whereas the treatment element SMP_4: Therapist promotes acknowledgment that some life goals may no longer be achievable was not implemented in a satisfactory manner. In terms of treatment differentiation, no treatment elements could be identified which were applied significantly more often by CALM therapists than by SPI therapists.ConclusionResults verify the application of CALM treatment domains. However, CALM therapists’ adherence scores indicated manual deviations. Furthermore, raters were not able to significantly distinguish CALM from SPI, implying that overlapping treatment elements were delivered to patients. (shrink)