Evidence mapPaperPMID 34408060Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2021

Lay perspectives of the open-label placebo rationale: a qualitative study of participants in an experimental trial.

Cosima Locher, Sarah Buergler, Antje Frey Nascimento, Linda Kost, Charlotte Blease, Jens Gaab

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02578420 (Back to Basics - Effects, Narratives and Routes of Administration of Open-label Placebo), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02578420 nacompletednot on this map

Back to Basics - Effects, Narratives and Routes of Administration of Open-label Placebo

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, Basel, SwitzerlandRan2016 to 2017Enrolled160ConditionsPlacebo Effect, Pain, ExpectancyArmsopen-label placebo, deceptive placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cosima LocherDepartment of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland cosimaantoinette.locher@uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-9660-0590
Sarah BuerglerDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Antje Frey NascimentoDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7907-0439
Linda KostDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Charlotte BleaseGeneral Medicine and Primary Care, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jens GaabDivision of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo analyse participants' concepts about the open-label placebo (OLP) effect; to explore their views about the discussion points that are applied in conventional OLP trials and to examine their experiences of taking part in an OLP trial.

designA qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews that were nested within a randomised controlled trial investigating experimental OLP analgesia (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578420).

participants30 healthy adults who took part in the randomised controlled trial.

resultsParticipants mostly conceptualised placebo as something that is inert and requires deception in order to be effective. Interviewees used a broad definition of placebos, going beyond a conventional notion of sugar pills. In contrast to the conventional OLP rationale, participants seldom emphasised classical conditioning as a mechanism of placebo effects, stressing a variety of other well-established components through which placebos might be therapeutic, whereas the conventional OLP disclosures state that 'a positive attitude helps but is not necessary', participants in our study applied other attitudes, such as 'it's worth a try'. When asked about their experiences during the trial, the majority emphasised that the concept of OLP was completely novel to them. Participants were rather sceptical about the efficacy of the intervention.

conclusionIntegrating lay perspectives into the scientific rationale of OLP treatments might enhance the plausibility and credibility of the rationale in ethical treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02578420.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaPlacebo EffectAdultHumansPainPain ManagementQualitative Researchmental healthpain managementprimary carequalitative researchquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34408060
PMCPMC8375733

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.