ArticlePloS one2026
Placebo and nocebo in clinical practice: An online cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals from European countries on views, practices and training needs.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical ethical practice and associated factors among health professionals in public hospitals in addis ababa, Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlacebo and nocebo effects significantly influence health outcomes, yet healthcare professionals receive limited training and guidance on their mechanisms and clinical application, creating a gap in education and practical understanding. Conducted within the European PANACEA Consortium, this study evaluated healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding placebo and nocebo effects, and assessed their needs in further education.
methodsAn online cross-sectional survey among a European multi-country convenience sample of healthcare professionals collected data assessing participants' knowledge, perceptions, and experiences regarding placebo and nocebo effects; their application and ethical considerations in clinical practice; and investigated educational needs and interest in further training. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and thematic analysis was applied to the free-text responses.
resultsAmongst 807 participants, 71.7% reported taking advantage of placebo effects in their practice, and over half of participants (55.8%) observing nocebo effects. Participants reported feeling somewhat confident (53.3%) in harnessing placebo effects with 47.5% feeling confident in preventing nocebo effects. The majority of respondents had not received formal training on placebo and nocebo effects, with most expressing an interest in further training in areas such as healthcare education, emphasizing communication skills to enhance placebo effects, and knowledge to recognize and reduce nocebo effects.
conclusionsThere is a significant need for more comprehensive training on placebo and nocebo effects, particularly in early health professional education. These findings informed the development of educational resources and best practice recommendations developed as part of the outcomes from the PANACEA Consortium, improving the understanding and application of these effects among healthcare professionals across Europe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.