Literature DB >> 28702702

[Placebo and nocebo : How can they be used or avoided?]

E Hansen1, N Zech2, K Meissner3,4.   

Abstract

The expectations of patients enhance the probability of their occurrence and are thereby the main triggers for inducing placebo and nocebo responses. Strong placebo effects are not only regularly observed in pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical sham treatment in placebo controlled studies but also make a considerable contribution to any real treatment. The accompanying words are essential to ensure maximum impact of drugs and other forms of treatment. They should contain positive expressions instead of negations. Such a strengthening of drug therapy by placebo effects is more important than the widespread use of placebos that remains a problem because of the obligation to provide information and effective therapy and because of inherently induced side effects. Any false comments about symptoms or side effects can aggravate or induce them. Nocebo effects are not imagined but real symptoms that can definitely be harmful. They constitute a considerable proportion of the side effects requiring treatment. Awareness and knowledge is needed to prevent or neutralize them. Nocebo effects are avoidable when risk information is always directly combined with positive aspects, such as the expected benefits of the treatment or the prophylactic measures and therapeutic options for side effects. Existing negative expectations are disrupted by providing more alternative options and by leaving negative experiences in the past where they belong. Placebo and nocebo effects are strongly sensitive to the context. They are dependent on the experiences and conceptions of the individual patient, as well as on the physician-patient relationship. The latter can provide the best protection against harm from risk disclosure. In addition, the expectations of patients and their consequences are strongly affected by the expectations of the treating doctor, by fellow patients, the media and society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Communication; Drug effects; Nocebo effect; Placebo effect; Risk disclosure

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28702702     DOI: 10.1007/s00108-017-0294-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Internist (Berl)        ISSN: 0020-9554            Impact factor:   0.743


  27 in total

1.  Drug-related information generates placebo and nocebo responses that modify the drug response.

Authors:  M A Flaten; T Simonsen; H Olsen
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.312

2.  Illness beliefs before cardiac surgery predict disability, quality of life, and depression 3 months later.

Authors:  Meike C Juergens; Bettina Seekatz; Rainer G Moosdorf; Keith J Petrie; Winfried Rief
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  2009-12-05       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  Headache, lumbar puncture, and expectation.

Authors:  A M Daniels; R Sallie
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1981-05-02       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Adverse events associated with unblinded, but not with blinded, statin therapy in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial and its non-randomised non-blind extension phase.

Authors:  Ajay Gupta; David Thompson; Andrew Whitehouse; Tim Collier; Bjorn Dahlof; Neil Poulter; Rory Collins; Peter Sever
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 5.  [Nocebo effects and negative suggestion in anesthesia].

Authors:  N Zech; M Seemann; E Hansen
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.041

6.  Fear-avoidance behavior and anticipation of pain in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  M Pfingsten; E Leibing; W Harter; B Kröner-Herwig; D Hempel; U Kronshage; J Hildebrandt
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.750

7.  Analgesic responses to morphine and placebo in individuals with postoperative pain.

Authors:  J D Levine; N C Gordon; R Smith; H L Fields
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 8.  Placebo and the new physiology of the doctor-patient relationship.

Authors:  Fabrizio Benedetti
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 37.312

9.  Nocebo as headache trigger: evidence from a sham-controlled provocation study with RF fields.

Authors:  L J Stovner; G Oftedal; A Straume; A Johnsson
Journal:  Acta Neurol Scand Suppl       Date:  2008

10.  Preoperative optimization of patient expectations improves long-term outcome in heart surgery patients: results of the randomized controlled PSY-HEART trial.

Authors:  Winfried Rief; Meike C Shedden-Mora; Johannes A C Laferton; Charlotte Auer; Keith J Petrie; Stefan Salzmann; Manfred Schedlowski; Rainer Moosdorf
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 8.775

View more
  3 in total

1.  Development, piloting, and evaluation of an evidence-based informed consent form for total knee arthroplasty (EvAb-Pilot): a protocol for a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Alina Weise; Julia Lühnen; Stefanie Bühn; Felicia Steffen; Sandro Zacher; Julia Lauberger; Deha Murat Ates; Andreas Böhmer; Henning Rosenau; Anke Steckelberg; Tim Mathes
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2021-05-13

2.  Brainstem Mechanisms of Pain Modulation: A within-Subjects 7T fMRI Study of Placebo Analgesic and Nocebo Hyperalgesic Responses.

Authors:  Lewis S Crawford; Emily P Mills; Theo Hanson; Paul M Macey; Rebecca Glarin; Vaughan G Macefield; Kevin A Keay; Luke A Henderson
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 6.709

Review 3.  Therapeutic use of serious games in mental health: scoping review.

Authors:  Alice Dewhirst; Richard Laugharne; Rohit Shankar
Journal:  BJPsych Open       Date:  2022-02-02
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.