Rosanne M Smits1,2,3, Dieuwke S Veldhuijzen1,2,3, Tim Olde Hartman4, Kaya J Peerdeman1,2, Liesbeth M Van Vliet1,2, Henriët Van Middendorp1,2, Ralph C A Rippe5, Nico M Wulffraat3, Andrea W M Evers1,2,6. 1. Health, Medical and Neuropsychology unit, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. 2. Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Pediatric Immunology and Rheumatology, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 5. Research Methods and Statistics, Institute of Education and Child Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the increasing knowledge about placebo effects and their beneficial impact on treatment outcomes, strategies that explicitly employ these mechanisms remain scarce. To benefit from placebo effects, it is important to gain better understanding in how individuals want to be informed about placebo effects (for example about the underlying mechanisms that steer placebo effects). The main aim of this study was to investigate placebo information strategies in a general population sample by assessing current placebo knowledge, preferences for different placebo explanations (built around well-known mechanisms involved in placebo effects), and attitudes and acceptability towards the use of placebo effects in treatment. DESIGN: Online survey. SETTING: Leiden, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 444 participants (377 completers), aged 16-78 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current placebo knowledge, placebo explanation preferences, and placebo attitudes and acceptability. RESULTS: Participants scored high on current placebo knowledge (correct answers: M = 81.15%, SD = 12.75). Comparisons of 8 different placebo explanations revealed that participants preferred explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations more than all other explanations (F(7, 368) = 3.618, p = .001). Furthermore, attitudes and acceptability for placebos in treatment varied for the type of the condition (i.e. more acceptant for psychological complaints) and participants indicated that physicians do not always have to be honest while making use of placebo effects for therapeutic benefit. CONCLUSION: Our results brought forth new evidence in placebo information strategies, and indicated that explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations were most preferred. These results can be insightful to construct placebo information strategies for both clinical context and research practices.
OBJECTIVES: Despite the increasing knowledge about placebo effects and their beneficial impact on treatment outcomes, strategies that explicitly employ these mechanisms remain scarce. To benefit from placebo effects, it is important to gain better understanding in how individuals want to be informed about placebo effects (for example about the underlying mechanisms that steer placebo effects). The main aim of this study was to investigate placebo information strategies in a general population sample by assessing current placebo knowledge, preferences for different placebo explanations (built around well-known mechanisms involved in placebo effects), and attitudes and acceptability towards the use of placebo effects in treatment. DESIGN: Online survey. SETTING: Leiden, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 444 participants (377 completers), aged 16-78 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current placebo knowledge, placebo explanation preferences, and placebo attitudes and acceptability. RESULTS:Participants scored high on current placebo knowledge (correct answers: M = 81.15%, SD = 12.75). Comparisons of 8 different placebo explanations revealed that participants preferred explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations more than all other explanations (F(7, 368) = 3.618, p = .001). Furthermore, attitudes and acceptability for placebos in treatment varied for the type of the condition (i.e. more acceptant for psychological complaints) and participants indicated that physicians do not always have to be honest while making use of placebo effects for therapeutic benefit. CONCLUSION: Our results brought forth new evidence in placebo information strategies, and indicated that explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations were most preferred. These results can be insightful to construct placebo information strategies for both clinical context and research practices.
Authors: Marta Peciña; Hamdan Azhar; Tiffany M Love; Tingting Lu; Barbara L Fredrickson; Christian S Stohler; Jon-Kar Zubieta Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Robert Ader; Mary Gail Mercurio; James Walton; Deborra James; Michael Davis; Valerie Ojha; Alexa Boer Kimball; David Fiorentino Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: John M Kelley; Anthony J Lembo; J Stuart Ablon; Joel J Villanueva; Lisa A Conboy; Ray Levy; Carl D Marci; Catherine E Kerr; Irving Kirsch; Eric E Jacobson; Helen Riess; Ted J Kaptchuk Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2009-08-06 Impact factor: 4.312
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: Rosanne M Smits; Dieuwke S Veldhuijzen; Henriët van Middendorp; Marianne J E van der Heijden; Monique van Dijk; Andrea W M Evers Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 4.157