Do patients with fibromyalgia syndrome and healthy people differ in their opinions on placebo effects in routine medical care?

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1111/papr.70000
Johan P A van Lennep, Simone Meijer, Merve Karacaoglu, Ralph Rippe, Kaya J Peerdeman, Henriët van Middendorp, Andrea W M Evers
{"title":"Do patients with fibromyalgia syndrome and healthy people differ in their opinions on placebo effects in routine medical care?","authors":"Johan P A van Lennep, Simone Meijer, Merve Karacaoglu, Ralph Rippe, Kaya J Peerdeman, Henriët van Middendorp, Andrea W M Evers","doi":"10.1111/papr.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Placebo effects can relieve acute and chronic pain in both research and clinical treatments by learning mechanisms. However, the application of placebo-based treatment strategies in routine medical care is questioned. The current study investigated the opinions of patients with fibromyalgia and healthy controls regarding learning of placebo effects and their practical applications.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>An online survey asked 158 age- and sex-matched adult patients and controls (79 per group) to rate the perceived influence of various placebo learning mechanisms on pain relief, and the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of placebo-based strategies (open-label, closed-label, dose-extending, and treatment-enhancing strategies). Respondents' knowledge about placebo effects was obtained through a 7-item quiz.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The groups did not differ in the perceived influence of placebo learning mechanisms on pain relief (p = 0.217). Controls considered closed-label and treatment-enhancing strategies more acceptable than patients (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001), whereas controls perceived all strategies more effective. In both groups, closed-label strategies were significantly less acceptable than any other strategy (p-values < 0.001), and treatment-enhancing or dose-extending strategies were most acceptable. Higher acceptability was predicted by higher perceived effectiveness ratings (p < 0.001). Also, increased placebo knowledge was related to higher acceptability (p = 0.03) and perceived effectiveness (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This survey suggests that both the medical history of patients and knowledge about placebo effects affect the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of placebo-based strategies. Furthermore, strategies that are transparent, assumed effective, or combined with existing medical treatments are deemed most acceptable. Keeping these factors in mind is essential for the clinical implementation of placebo-based strategies in routine medical care.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"25 2","pages":"e70000"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11771638/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70000","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Placebo effects can relieve acute and chronic pain in both research and clinical treatments by learning mechanisms. However, the application of placebo-based treatment strategies in routine medical care is questioned. The current study investigated the opinions of patients with fibromyalgia and healthy controls regarding learning of placebo effects and their practical applications.

Method: An online survey asked 158 age- and sex-matched adult patients and controls (79 per group) to rate the perceived influence of various placebo learning mechanisms on pain relief, and the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of placebo-based strategies (open-label, closed-label, dose-extending, and treatment-enhancing strategies). Respondents' knowledge about placebo effects was obtained through a 7-item quiz.

Results: The groups did not differ in the perceived influence of placebo learning mechanisms on pain relief (p = 0.217). Controls considered closed-label and treatment-enhancing strategies more acceptable than patients (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001), whereas controls perceived all strategies more effective. In both groups, closed-label strategies were significantly less acceptable than any other strategy (p-values < 0.001), and treatment-enhancing or dose-extending strategies were most acceptable. Higher acceptability was predicted by higher perceived effectiveness ratings (p < 0.001). Also, increased placebo knowledge was related to higher acceptability (p = 0.03) and perceived effectiveness (p < 0.001).

Discussion: This survey suggests that both the medical history of patients and knowledge about placebo effects affect the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of placebo-based strategies. Furthermore, strategies that are transparent, assumed effective, or combined with existing medical treatments are deemed most acceptable. Keeping these factors in mind is essential for the clinical implementation of placebo-based strategies in routine medical care.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.
×
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