Integrating Placebo Effects in General Practice: A Cross-Sectional Survey to Investigate Perspectives From Health Care Professionals in the Netherlands

Objectives: Placebo effects, beneficial treatment outcomes due to non-active treatment components, play an important role in the overall treatment response. To facilitate these beneficial effects it is important to explore the perspectives of health care professionals (HCPs) on the integration of placebo effects in clinical care. Three themes were investigated: knowledge about placebo effects and factors that contribute to these, frequency of placebo use, and attitudes toward acceptability and transparency of placebo use in treatment.Methods: A cross-sectional survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys guidelines and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), was conducted in the Netherlands in 2020. The survey was conducted in two samples: a (nested) short survey in 78 nurses during working shifts (sample 1) and an extended online survey in 47 general HCPs e.g., medical psychologists, oncologists, surgeons (sample 2).Results: Respondents from both samples reported to be somewhat or quite familiar with placebo effects (24.0 and 47.2%, respectively). From the six placebo mechanisms that were presented, mind-body interaction, positive expectations, and brain activity involved in placebo effects were rated as the most influential factors in placebo effects [F(5,119) = 20.921, p < 0.001]. The use of placebo effects was reported in 53.8% (n = 42) of the nurses (e.g., by inducing positive expectations), and 17.4% of the HCPs (n = 8 reported to make use of pure placebos and 30.4% of impure placebos (n = 14). Attitudes toward placebo use in treatment were acceptant, and transparency was highly valued (both up to 51%).Conclusions: The findings from this study address knowledge gaps in placebo effects in practice and provide insights in attitudes toward the integration of placebo effects from HCPs. Altogether, integrating these findings may potentially optimize treatment outcomes.

Choice and the Placebo Effect: A Meta-analysis

Background Choice has been proposed as a method of enhancing placebo effects. However, there have been no attempts to systematically evaluate the magnitude, reliability, and moderators of the influence of choice on the placebo effect. Purpose To estimate the effect size of choice on the placebo effect and identify any moderators of this effect. Methods Web of Science, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and PubMed were systematically searched from inception to May 2021 for studies comparing placebo treatment with any form of choice over its administration (e.g., type, timing) to placebo treatment without choice, on any health-related outcome. Random-effects meta-analysis was then used to estimate the effect size associated with the influence of choice on the placebo effect. Meta-regression was subsequently employed to determine the moderating effect of factors such as type of choice, frequency of choice, and size of the placebo effect without choice. Results Fifteen independent studies (N = 1,506) assessing a range of conditions, including pain, discomfort, sleep difficulty, and anxiety, met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that choice did significantly enhance the placebo effect (Hedges’ g = 0.298). Size of the placebo effect without choice was the only reliable moderator of this effect, whereby a greater effect of choice was associated with smaller placebo effects without choice. Conclusions Treatment choice can effectively facilitate the placebo effect, but this effect appears more pronounced in contexts where the placebo effect without choice is weaker. Because most evidence to date is experimental, translational studies are needed to test whether providing choice in clinical scenarios where placebo effects are weaker may help boost the placebo effect and thereby improve patient outcomes.

What Do Placebo and Nocebo Effects Have to Do With Health Equity? The Hidden Toll of Nocebo Effects on Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients in Clinical Care

A placebo effect is a positive clinical response to non-specific elements of treatment with a sham or inert replica of a drug, device, or surgical intervention. There is considerable evidence that placebo effects are driven by expectation of benefit from the intervention. Expectation is shaped by a patient’s past experience, observations of the experience of others, and written, verbal, or non-verbal information communicated during treatment. Not surprisingly, expectation in the clinical setting is strongly influenced by the attitude, affect, and communication style of the healthcare provider. While positive expectations can produce beneficial effects, negative information and experiences can lead to negative expectations, and consequently negative or nocebo effects. Key components identified and studied in the placebo and nocebo literature intersect with factors identified as barriers to quality care in the clinical setting for Black patients and other patients of color, including poor patient-clinician communication, medical mistrust, and perceived discrimination. Thus, in the context of discrimination and bias, the absence of placebo and presence of nocebo-generating influences in clinical settings could potentially reinforce racial and ethnic inequities in clinical outcomes and care. Healthcare inequities have consequences that ripple through the medical system, strengthening adverse short- and long-term outcomes. Here, we examine the potential for the presence of nocebo effects and absence of placebo effects to play a role in contributing to negative outcomes related to unequal treatment in the clinical encounter.

Placebo and Non-specific Effects in Reconsolidation-Based Treatment for Arachnophobia

The idea that maladaptive memories may be rendered susceptible to interference after reactivation raises the possibility of reactivating and neutralizing clinically-relevant emotional memories. In this study, we sought to investigate the feasibility of such a “reconsolidation-based” intervention for arachnophobia, drawing upon previous research that successfully reduced fear of spiders in a subclinical sample. In Experiment 1, we piloted several reactivation procedures for conducting a reconsolidation-based treatment for arachnophobic individuals. All procedures involved some form of brief exposure to a fear-provoking spider, followed by the administration of 40 mg propranolol. In Experiment 2, we conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled assessment of one procedure tested in Experiment 1. In Experiment 1, we found that most reactivation procedures produced drops in self-reported fear of spiders from pre- to post-treatment, including fear declines that were apparent up to 6- and even 14-months later. However, in Experiment 2, we found no evidence that the participants receiving propranolol were better off than those who received placebo. While our findings are limited by the small sample sizes used, they nevertheless show a different pattern of responses than was observed in a previous reconsolidation-based intervention for subclinical spider fearful participants. Alterations to the protocol made to accommodate the clinical participants may have led to greater opportunities for non-specific effects (e.g., exposure, placebo effects) to drive change in the participants. Our findings highlight both the challenges of translating reconsolidation-based procedures into clinical interventions, as well as the importance of controls for non-specific effects in reconsolidation-based research.