Felicity L Bishop1, Jeremy Howick2, Carl Heneghan2, Sarah Stevens2, F D Richard Hobbs2, George Lewith3. 1. Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, Centre for Applications of Health Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, F.L.Bishop@southampton.ac.uk. 2. Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford and. 3. Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surveys show GPs use placebos in clinical practice and reported prevalence rates vary widely. AIM: To explore GPs' perspectives on clinical uses of placebos. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based survey of 783 UK GPs' use of placebos in clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ('comments') to three open-ended questions. RESULTS: Comments were classified into three categories: (i) defining placebos and their effects in general practice; (ii) ethical, societal and regulatory issues faced by doctors and (iii) reasons why a doctor might use placebos and placebo effects in clinical practice. GPs typically defined placebos as lacking something, be that adverse or beneficial effects, known mechanism of action and/or scientific evidence. Some GPs defined placebos positively as having potential to benefit patients, primarily through psychological mechanisms. GPs described a broad array of possible harms and benefits of placebo prescribing, reflecting fundamental bioethical principles, at the level of the individual, the doctor-patient relationship, the National Health Service and society. While some GPs were adamant that there was no place for placebos in clinical practice, others focused on the clinically beneficial effects of placebos in primary care. CONCLUSION: This study has elucidated specific costs, benefits and ethical barriers to placebo use as perceived by a large sample of UK GPs. Stand-alone qualitative work would provide a more in-depth understanding of GPs' views. Continuing education and professional guidance could help GPs update and contextualize their understanding of placebos and their clinical effects.
BACKGROUND: Surveys show GPs use placebos in clinical practice and reported prevalence rates vary widely. AIM: To explore GPs' perspectives on clinical uses of placebos. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based survey of 783 UK GPs' use of placebos in clinical practice. METHODS: Qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ('comments') to three open-ended questions. RESULTS: Comments were classified into three categories: (i) defining placebos and their effects in general practice; (ii) ethical, societal and regulatory issues faced by doctors and (iii) reasons why a doctor might use placebos and placebo effects in clinical practice. GPs typically defined placebos as lacking something, be that adverse or beneficial effects, known mechanism of action and/or scientific evidence. Some GPs defined placebos positively as having potential to benefit patients, primarily through psychological mechanisms. GPs described a broad array of possible harms and benefits of placebo prescribing, reflecting fundamental bioethical principles, at the level of the individual, the doctor-patient relationship, the National Health Service and society. While some GPs were adamant that there was no place for placebos in clinical practice, others focused on the clinically beneficial effects of placebos in primary care. CONCLUSION: This study has elucidated specific costs, benefits and ethical barriers to placebo use as perceived by a large sample of UK GPs. Stand-alone qualitative work would provide a more in-depth understanding of GPs' views. Continuing education and professional guidance could help GPs update and contextualize their understanding of placebos and their clinical effects.
Authors: S M Patel; W B Stason; A Legedza; S M Ock; T J Kaptchuk; L Conboy; K Canenguez; J K Park; E Kelly; E Jacobson; C E Kerr; A J Lembo Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Ted J Kaptchuk; Elizabeth Friedlander; John M Kelley; M Norma Sanchez; Efi Kokkotou; Joyce P Singer; Magda Kowalczykowski; Franklin G Miller; Irving Kirsch; Anthony J Lembo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Felicity L Bishop; Beverly Coghlan; Adam Wa Geraghty; Hazel Everitt; Paul Little; Michelle M Holmes; Dionysis Seretis; George Lewith Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mohana Ratnapalan; Beverly Coghlan; Mengxin Tan; Hazel Everitt; Adam W A Geraghty; Paul Little; George Lewith; Felicity L Bishop Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Emma Teasdale; Ingrid Muller; Amirah Abdullah Sani; Kim S Thomas; Beth Stuart; Miriam Santer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Klaus Linde; Oxana Atmann; Karin Meissner; Antonius Schneider; Ramona Meister; Levente Kriston; Christoph Werner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240