What Is the Benefit of Adding Placebo Side-Effect Information to Positively Framed Patient Leaflets?

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Amina Saadi, Asra Mahmood, Jack Sweeney, R. Webster
{"title":"What Is the Benefit of Adding Placebo Side-Effect Information to Positively Framed Patient Leaflets?","authors":"Amina Saadi, Asra Mahmood, Jack Sweeney, R. Webster","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Background: Positively framing side-effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) can reduce side-effect expectations and resulting nocebo effects (nonspecific medication side effects unrelated to the drug’s pharmacological action). There is scope to educate patients about nocebo effects in PILs to minimize their occurrence further. Aims: To investigate if incorporating information on placebo-reported side effects reduces side-effect expectations compared to a positively framed-only or standard PIL. Methods: Participants ( N = 443) completed an online study and were randomized to read one of three PILs for a hypothetical antibiotic: standard PIL ( n = 140), positively framed PIL ( n = 151), or positively framed PIL with placebo side-effect information ( n = 152). Participants’ side-effect expectations, absolute risk perceptions, and intended adherence were recorded. Results: The standard PIL resulted in significantly higher side-effect expectations compared to the positively framed + placebo side-effect information PIL. Including the placebo side-effect results had no effect on side-effect expectations compared to the positive framing only PIL, however, there was a significant interaction between health literacy and PIL condition on side-effect expectations. Both positively framed PILs produced more accurate risk estimates for the more common side effects. There was no difference in intended adherence between the three PILs. Limitations: Our findings are limited by the highly educated sample and hypothetical context. Conclusions: There was no benefit of adding placebo side-effect information, however alternative ways of explaining nocebo effects in PILs should be explored utilizing clinical contexts and samples with a wider range of participant ages, and health literacy.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. Background: Positively framing side-effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) can reduce side-effect expectations and resulting nocebo effects (nonspecific medication side effects unrelated to the drug’s pharmacological action). There is scope to educate patients about nocebo effects in PILs to minimize their occurrence further. Aims: To investigate if incorporating information on placebo-reported side effects reduces side-effect expectations compared to a positively framed-only or standard PIL. Methods: Participants ( N = 443) completed an online study and were randomized to read one of three PILs for a hypothetical antibiotic: standard PIL ( n = 140), positively framed PIL ( n = 151), or positively framed PIL with placebo side-effect information ( n = 152). Participants’ side-effect expectations, absolute risk perceptions, and intended adherence were recorded. Results: The standard PIL resulted in significantly higher side-effect expectations compared to the positively framed + placebo side-effect information PIL. Including the placebo side-effect results had no effect on side-effect expectations compared to the positive framing only PIL, however, there was a significant interaction between health literacy and PIL condition on side-effect expectations. Both positively framed PILs produced more accurate risk estimates for the more common side effects. There was no difference in intended adherence between the three PILs. Limitations: Our findings are limited by the highly educated sample and hypothetical context. Conclusions: There was no benefit of adding placebo side-effect information, however alternative ways of explaining nocebo effects in PILs should be explored utilizing clinical contexts and samples with a wider range of participant ages, and health literacy.
将安慰剂副作用信息添加到积极框架的患者宣传单中有什么好处?
摘要背景:在患者信息单张(PILs)中积极描述副作用风险可以降低副作用预期和由此产生的反安慰剂效应(与药物药理作用无关的非特异性药物副作用)。对患者进行反安慰剂效应教育,以进一步减少其发生,是有余地的。目的:调查是否纳入安慰剂报告的副作用的信息减少副作用预期相比,积极框架或标准PIL。方法:参与者(N = 443)完成了一项在线研究,并被随机分配阅读一种假设抗生素的三种PIL中的一种:标准PIL (N = 140),积极框架PIL (N = 151),或积极框架PIL与安慰剂副作用信息(N = 152)。记录参与者的副作用预期、绝对风险感知和预期依从性。结果:与积极框架+安慰剂副作用信息的PIL相比,标准PIL的副作用预期显著更高。包括安慰剂的副作用结果对副作用预期没有影响,但健康素养和PIL条件对副作用预期有显著的交互作用。对于更常见的副作用,这两种积极框架的药物都产生了更准确的风险估计。三种药物的预期依从性没有差异。局限性:我们的发现受到高学历样本和假设背景的限制。结论:添加安慰剂副作用信息没有好处,然而,应该利用临床背景和更广泛的参与者年龄和健康素养的样本来探索解释pil中反安慰剂效应的替代方法。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Die "Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie" wurde gegründet, um dem raschen Anwachsen gesundheitspsychologischer Forschung sowie deren Relevanz für verschiedene Anwendungsfelder gerecht zu werden. Gesundheitspsychologie versteht sich als wissenschaftlicher Beitrag der Psychologie zur Förderung und Erhaltung von Gesundheit, zur Verhütung und Behandlung von Krankheiten, zur Bestimmung von Risikoverhaltensweisen, zur Diagnose und Ursachenbestimmung von gesundheitlichen Störungen sowie zur Verbessung des Systems gesundheitlicher Vorsorge.
×
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