Mark H Arnold1, Damien Finniss2, Georgina M Luscombe1, Ian Kerridge3. 1. School of Rural Health (Dubbo/Orange), Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Department of Anaesthesia & Pain Management Research Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital and; Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Sydney Health Ethics, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, and Department of Haematology, Royal North Shore Hospital, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Understanding placebo and nocebo responses (context/meaning effects [CMEs]) is fundamental to physician agency. Specific instruction in CMEs is often lacking in medical education. Patient-practitioner interactions may challenge medical students' understanding of biomedical causality and the nexus between this, practical ethics and professionalism across various conceptual and applied aspects of CMEs. This study compared the corpus of knowledge and phronesis related to CMEs between Australian graduate medical students and rheumatologists to gain a sophisticated understanding of this relationship to inform curriculum development. METHOD: In 2013 and 2014, the authors surveyed third-year medical students undertaking a graduate programme in an Australian medical school and Australian rheumatologists to ascertain their understanding of placebo and nocebo responses. The survey ascertained (1) the alignment of the respondents' understanding of CMEs with accepted facts and concepts; (2) opinions on the ethical status of CMEs; and (3) responses to 2 scenarios designed to explore matters of biomedical causality, practical ethics and professionalism. RESULTS: There were 88 completed surveys returned, 53 rheumatologists and 35 students. Similar proportions within each group identified CMEs, with most (n = 79/88 [89.8%]) correctly recognising a placebo (rheumatologists: 50 [94.3%], students: 29 [82.9%]) and approximately three-quarters (n = 65/88 [73.9%]) correctly recognising nocebo effects (rheumatologists: 39 [73.6%], students: 26 [74.3%]). Statistically significant differences between practitioners and students were observed in relation to the following: placebo responders and placebo responsiveness; placebos as a 'diagnostic tool'; placebos usage in clinical practice and research, and nocebo effects. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians require an awareness of CMEs and the fact that they arise from and influence the effective agency of health care professionals. Curricular emphasis is needed to permit an honest assessment of the components that influence when, how and why patient outcomes arise, and how one's agency might have neutral or negative effects but could be inclined towards positive and away from negative patient outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Understanding placebo and nocebo responses (context/meaning effects [CMEs]) is fundamental to physician agency. Specific instruction in CMEs is often lacking in medical education. Patient-practitioner interactions may challenge medical students' understanding of biomedical causality and the nexus between this, practical ethics and professionalism across various conceptual and applied aspects of CMEs. This study compared the corpus of knowledge and phronesis related to CMEs between Australian graduate medical students and rheumatologists to gain a sophisticated understanding of this relationship to inform curriculum development. METHOD: In 2013 and 2014, the authors surveyed third-year medical students undertaking a graduate programme in an Australian medical school and Australian rheumatologists to ascertain their understanding of placebo and nocebo responses. The survey ascertained (1) the alignment of the respondents' understanding of CMEs with accepted facts and concepts; (2) opinions on the ethical status of CMEs; and (3) responses to 2 scenarios designed to explore matters of biomedical causality, practical ethics and professionalism. RESULTS: There were 88 completed surveys returned, 53 rheumatologists and 35 students. Similar proportions within each group identified CMEs, with most (n = 79/88 [89.8%]) correctly recognising a placebo (rheumatologists: 50 [94.3%], students: 29 [82.9%]) and approximately three-quarters (n = 65/88 [73.9%]) correctly recognising nocebo effects (rheumatologists: 39 [73.6%], students: 26 [74.3%]). Statistically significant differences between practitioners and students were observed in relation to the following: placebo responders and placebo responsiveness; placebos as a 'diagnostic tool'; placebos usage in clinical practice and research, and nocebo effects. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians require an awareness of CMEs and the fact that they arise from and influence the effective agency of health care professionals. Curricular emphasis is needed to permit an honest assessment of the components that influence when, how and why patient outcomes arise, and how one's agency might have neutral or negative effects but could be inclined towards positive and away from negative patient outcomes.
Authors: Elizabeth Gaufberg; David Bor; Perry Dinardo; Edward Krupat; Elizabeth Pine; Barbara Ogur; David A Hirsh Journal: Perspect Biol Med Date: 2017 Impact factor: 1.416
Authors: Lieke Tweehuysen; Bart J F van den Bemt; Iris L van Ingen; Alphons J L de Jong; Willemijn H van der Laan; Frank H J van den Hoogen; Alfons A den Broeder Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Andrea W M Evers; Luana Colloca; Charlotte Blease; Marco Annoni; Lauren Y Atlas; Fabrizio Benedetti; Ulrike Bingel; Christian Büchel; Claudia Carvalho; Ben Colagiuri; Alia J Crum; Paul Enck; Jens Gaab; Andrew L Geers; Jeremy Howick; Karin B Jensen; Irving Kirsch; Karin Meissner; Vitaly Napadow; Kaya J Peerdeman; Amir Raz; Winfried Rief; Lene Vase; Tor D Wager; Bruce E Wampold; Katja Weimer; Katja Wiech; Ted J Kaptchuk; Regine Klinger; John M Kelley Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Kun Zou; Jean Wong; Natasya Abdullah; Xi Chen; Toby Smith; Michael Doherty; Weiya Zhang Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 19.103