Evidence mapPaperPMID 40415530Full record

ArticleJournal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England)2025

What are set and setting: Reducing vagueness to improve research and clinical practice.

Kyle Patch, William R Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

2 authors.

Kyle PatchDepartment of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Washington, DC, USA.
William R SmithDepartment of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6611-0817

Funding

SCHIZOPHRENIA: A NEUROPSYCHIATRIC PERSPECTIVET32MH019112 · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · 1990 to 2005
$1.3M
NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH019112
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on the therapeutic potential of psychedelics has surged, prompting a re-examination of the role of set and setting in psychedelic-assisted therapy. Yet, these concepts are vague and typically defined over inclusively. We believe that set and setting research should be methodologically reductionist, focusing on specific components rather than set and setting as such. To that end, we propose the mechanism-first approach, which begins with specific, paradigmatic set and setting components, such as "openness to the psychedelic experience" or calming lighting and music. It seeks to understand the mechanisms through which these components affect psychedelic outcomes. Once the mechanisms in paradigmatic cases are understood, researchers can ask whether other mental and environmental factors play the same or similar mechanistic roles. As the process iterates over time, understanding of set and setting expands to include more components. Setting aside the vague, standard definitions of set and setting and focusing, instead, on specific components of set and setting, the mechanism-first approach encourages productive research agendas, focused on specific projects that are mutually informative. To defend it, we outline the problems with standard definitions of set and setting, describe the mechanism-first approach in detail, illustrate it by considering its implications for selected, active research projects, and respond to objections to our approach.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHallucinogensHumansResearch DesignHallucinogensmechanismsphilosophy of sciencePsychedelicsset and setting

Identifiers

PMID40415530
PMCPMC12354155

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.