The Power of a Good Word: Enhancing the Efficacy of Analgesics in Clinical Settings.

IF 16.3 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Roi Treister, Vered Cohen, Limor Issa, Karine Beiruti Wiegler, Alexander Izakson, Mariana Agostinho
{"title":"The Power of a Good Word: Enhancing the Efficacy of Analgesics in Clinical Settings.","authors":"Roi Treister, Vered Cohen, Limor Issa, Karine Beiruti Wiegler, Alexander Izakson, Mariana Agostinho","doi":"10.1159/000541810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Communication between medical staff and patients about treatment efficacy elicits expectations of benefit and improves treatment outcomes. While demonstrated in multiple studies via different research methodologies, uniform communication protocols have not been adopted in clinical practice. Here, we summarize the results of two sister studies aimed at bridging this gap.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Women undergoing C-section (study 1, randomized controlled trial) and patients undergoing general or otolaryngologic surgeries (study 2, control group design) were recruited and assigned to the \"regular communication\" (RC) or \"enhanced communication\" (EC) arms. The EC arm received positive information about treatment, while the RC arm received no such information. In both studies, the primary outcome was change in pain intensity; in study 2, an additional outcome was morphine consumption.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty women successfully completed study 1, and 102 patients successfully completed study 2. In both studies, significant time*group interactions were observed (p < 0.001). The analgesic effect was virtually twice as large in the EC arm compared to the RC arm. In study 2, in the last two timepoints of assessment, participants in the EC arm also consumed fewer doses of opioids than participants in the RC arm (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in vital signs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We provide ecological evidence that positive information about treatment significantly decreases pain and opioid consumption during routine clinical care. This study and others could encourage healthcare providers to harness the powerful effects of patients' expectations of benefit to improve analgesics outcomes and, potentially, the outcomes of other symptoms.</p>","PeriodicalId":20744,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541810","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Communication between medical staff and patients about treatment efficacy elicits expectations of benefit and improves treatment outcomes. While demonstrated in multiple studies via different research methodologies, uniform communication protocols have not been adopted in clinical practice. Here, we summarize the results of two sister studies aimed at bridging this gap.

Methods: Women undergoing C-section (study 1, randomized controlled trial) and patients undergoing general or otolaryngologic surgeries (study 2, control group design) were recruited and assigned to the "regular communication" (RC) or "enhanced communication" (EC) arms. The EC arm received positive information about treatment, while the RC arm received no such information. In both studies, the primary outcome was change in pain intensity; in study 2, an additional outcome was morphine consumption.

Results: Eighty women successfully completed study 1, and 102 patients successfully completed study 2. In both studies, significant time*group interactions were observed (p < 0.001). The analgesic effect was virtually twice as large in the EC arm compared to the RC arm. In study 2, in the last two timepoints of assessment, participants in the EC arm also consumed fewer doses of opioids than participants in the RC arm (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in vital signs.

Conclusions: We provide ecological evidence that positive information about treatment significantly decreases pain and opioid consumption during routine clinical care. This study and others could encourage healthcare providers to harness the powerful effects of patients' expectations of benefit to improve analgesics outcomes and, potentially, the outcomes of other symptoms.

好话的力量:在临床环境中提高镇痛药的疗效。
导言:医务人员与患者就治疗效果进行沟通,可激发患者对治疗效果的期望,并改善治疗效果。虽然多项研究通过不同的研究方法证明了这一点,但临床实践中尚未采用统一的沟通协议。在此,我们总结了两项姐妹研究的结果,旨在缩小这一差距:方法:我们招募了接受剖腹产手术的妇女(研究 1,随机对照试验)和接受普通外科或耳鼻喉科手术的患者(研究 2,对照组设计),并将她们分配到 "常规沟通"(RC)或 "强化沟通"(EC)组。加强沟通 "组接受有关治疗的正面信息,而 "常规沟通 "组则不接受此类信息。两项研究的主要结果都是疼痛强度的变化;研究 2 的附加结果是吗啡消耗量:结果:80 名女性成功完成了研究 1,102 名患者成功完成了研究 2。在这两项研究中,都观察到了明显的时间*组间相互作用(p < 0.001)。EC组的镇痛效果几乎是RC组的两倍。在研究 2 中,在评估的最后两个时间点,EC 组参与者的阿片类药物用量也少于 RC 组参与者(p < 0.001)。生命体征方面没有发现明显差异:我们提供的生态学证据表明,在常规临床护理过程中,有关治疗的积极信息能显著减少疼痛和阿片类药物的消耗。这项研究和其他研究可以鼓励医疗服务提供者利用患者对获益预期的强大作用来改善镇痛效果,并有可能改善其他症状的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
29.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is a reputable journal that has been published since 1953. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its independence, originality, and methodological rigor. The journal has been at the forefront of research in psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy research, and psychopharmacology, and has contributed to the development of new lines of research in these areas. It is now ranked among the world's most cited journals in the field. As the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics serves as a platform for discussing current and controversial issues and showcasing innovations in assessment and treatment. It offers a unique forum for cutting-edge thinking at the intersection of medical and behavioral sciences, catering to both practicing clinicians and researchers. The journal is indexed in various databases and platforms such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, Google Scholar, Academic Search, and Health Research Premium Collection, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信