A scoping review of placebo and nocebo responses and effects: insights for clinical trials and practice.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Arianna Bagnis, Stefanie H Meeuwis, Julia W Haas, Mary O'Keeffe, Elzbieta Anita Bajcar, Przemyslaw Babel, Andrea W M Evers, Eveliina Glogan, Marek Oleszczyk, Antonio Portoles, Johan W S Vlaeyen, Katia Mattarozzi
{"title":"A scoping review of placebo and nocebo responses and effects: insights for clinical trials and practice.","authors":"Arianna Bagnis, Stefanie H Meeuwis, Julia W Haas, Mary O'Keeffe, Elzbieta Anita Bajcar, Przemyslaw Babel, Andrea W M Evers, Eveliina Glogan, Marek Oleszczyk, Antonio Portoles, Johan W S Vlaeyen, Katia Mattarozzi","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2025.2471792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Placebo and nocebo responses and effects influence treatment outcomes across a variety of conditions. The current scoping review aims to synthesise evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses in both clinical and healthy populations, elucidating key determinants of placebo and nocebo responses and effects, including individual, clinical, psychological and contextual factors. Among the 306 publications identified, 83% were meta-analyses and 17% systematic reviews, with a predominance of research in medical specialties (81.7%) such as psychiatry and neurology. Placebo responses were significantly more studied than nocebo responses. Individual determinants (e.g., age), clinical determinants (e.g., baseline symptom severity) and psychological determinants (e.g., expectations) were found to influence placebo and nocebo outcomes. Contextual determinants, including trial design and the method of treatment administration, also played critical roles. Several key underinvestigated areas in the current body of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also identified. This scoping review highlights valuable insights into the determinants of placebo and nocebo responses and effects on a group level, potentially offering practical implications for optimising clinical trial designs and enhancing patient care strategies in clinical practice. However, to fully leverage these benefits, it is crucial to address the underexplored topics through more rigorous investigations using a person-centred perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"1-39"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2025.2471792","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Placebo and nocebo responses and effects influence treatment outcomes across a variety of conditions. The current scoping review aims to synthesise evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses in both clinical and healthy populations, elucidating key determinants of placebo and nocebo responses and effects, including individual, clinical, psychological and contextual factors. Among the 306 publications identified, 83% were meta-analyses and 17% systematic reviews, with a predominance of research in medical specialties (81.7%) such as psychiatry and neurology. Placebo responses were significantly more studied than nocebo responses. Individual determinants (e.g., age), clinical determinants (e.g., baseline symptom severity) and psychological determinants (e.g., expectations) were found to influence placebo and nocebo outcomes. Contextual determinants, including trial design and the method of treatment administration, also played critical roles. Several key underinvestigated areas in the current body of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also identified. This scoping review highlights valuable insights into the determinants of placebo and nocebo responses and effects on a group level, potentially offering practical implications for optimising clinical trial designs and enhancing patient care strategies in clinical practice. However, to fully leverage these benefits, it is crucial to address the underexplored topics through more rigorous investigations using a person-centred perspective.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
×
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