纤维肌痛综合征患者和健康人在常规医疗护理中对安慰剂效应的看法不同吗?

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":"纤维肌痛综合征患者和健康人在常规医疗护理中对安慰剂效应的看法不同吗?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:安慰剂效应在研究和临床治疗中均可通过学习机制缓解急慢性疼痛。然而,以安慰剂为基础的治疗策略在常规医疗保健中的应用受到质疑。本研究调查了纤维肌痛患者和健康对照者对安慰剂效应及其实际应用的认识。方法:一项在线调查要求158名年龄和性别匹配的成年患者和对照组(每组79人)评估各种安慰剂学习机制对疼痛缓解的感知影响,以及基于安慰剂的策略(开放标签、封闭标签、剂量扩大和治疗强化策略)的可接受性和感知有效性。受访者对安慰剂效应的认知是通过一个7题测验获得的。结果:两组在安慰剂学习机制对疼痛缓解的感知影响上没有差异(p = 0.217)。对照组认为封闭标签和强化治疗策略比患者更容易接受(p = 0.003和p)。讨论:这项调查表明,患者的病史和对安慰剂效应的了解都会影响以安慰剂为基础的策略的可接受性和感知有效性。此外,人们认为最可接受的战略是透明的、假定有效的或与现有医疗相结合的战略。牢记这些因素对于在常规医疗护理中临床实施以安慰剂为基础的策略至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do patients with fibromyalgia syndrome and healthy people differ in their opinions on placebo effects in routine medical care?

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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