对开放标签安慰剂使用者的负面认知可能对干预措施的采用构成障碍。

IF 3.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Tyrone J Sgambati, Luana Colloca, Andrew L Geers, Darwin A Guevarra
{"title":"对开放标签安慰剂使用者的负面认知可能对干预措施的采用构成障碍。","authors":"Tyrone J Sgambati, Luana Colloca, Andrew L Geers, Darwin A Guevarra","doi":"10.1093/abm/kaaf011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent research has revealed that the use of specific medical interventions carries with it social stigma. This \"intervention stigma\" can pose an obstacle to the use and adoption of interventions that may otherwise be effective in managing medical conditions. Open-label placebos (OLPs) have been identified as a potential intervention for a variety of clinical and nonclinical conditions but are viewed with skepticism among lay populations.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This online experimental study aimed to quantify intervention stigma associated with the use of OLP interventions for a medical condition within a warmth-competence framework of social perception.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In an online experiment fielded in the USA (N = 541), we randomly assigned participants to read 1 of 4 vignettes about a patient who is administered an OLP intervention by a physician for chronic back pain. In each vignette, the patient's belief in and response to the treatment varied. After reading the vignette, participants rated the patient on several characteristics that captured perceptions of warmth and competence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that patients who believed in the OLP intervention or reported improvement after taking it were perceived as less competent and warmer.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that the use of OLP interventions for medical conditions carries intervention stigma. We contend that this stigma poses an obstacle to the adoption of OLP interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":7939,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Behavioral Medicine","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Negative lay perceptions of open-label placebo users may pose barriers to intervention adoption.\",\"authors\":\"Tyrone J Sgambati, Luana Colloca, Andrew L Geers, Darwin A Guevarra\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/abm/kaaf011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recent research has revealed that the use of specific medical interventions carries with it social stigma. This \\\"intervention stigma\\\" can pose an obstacle to the use and adoption of interventions that may otherwise be effective in managing medical conditions. Open-label placebos (OLPs) have been identified as a potential intervention for a variety of clinical and nonclinical conditions but are viewed with skepticism among lay populations.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This online experimental study aimed to quantify intervention stigma associated with the use of OLP interventions for a medical condition within a warmth-competence framework of social perception.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In an online experiment fielded in the USA (N = 541), we randomly assigned participants to read 1 of 4 vignettes about a patient who is administered an OLP intervention by a physician for chronic back pain. In each vignette, the patient's belief in and response to the treatment varied. After reading the vignette, participants rated the patient on several characteristics that captured perceptions of warmth and competence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that patients who believed in the OLP intervention or reported improvement after taking it were perceived as less competent and warmer.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results suggest that the use of OLP interventions for medical conditions carries intervention stigma. We contend that this stigma poses an obstacle to the adoption of OLP interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaf011\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaf011","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:最近的研究表明,使用特定的医疗干预措施会带来社会耻辱。这种“干预污名”可能对干预措施的使用和采用构成障碍,否则这些干预措施可能有效地管理医疗状况。开放标签安慰剂(OLPs)已被确定为各种临床和非临床条件的潜在干预措施,但在非专业人群中持怀疑态度。目的:本在线实验研究旨在在社会感知的温暖-能力框架内量化与使用OLP干预有关的干预污名。方法:在美国进行的一项在线实验中(N = 541),我们随机分配参与者阅读四篇小短文中的一篇,内容是关于一位医生对慢性背痛进行OLP干预的患者。在每个小插曲中,患者对治疗的信念和反应各不相同。在看完小短文后,参与者根据几个特征给病人打分,这些特征反映了他们对热情和能力的看法。结果:我们发现相信OLP干预或服用后报告改善的患者被认为能力较差和更温暖。结论:我们的研究结果表明,在医疗条件下使用OLP干预会带来干预污名。我们认为,这种耻辱对OLP干预措施的采用构成了障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Negative lay perceptions of open-label placebo users may pose barriers to intervention adoption.

Background: Recent research has revealed that the use of specific medical interventions carries with it social stigma. This "intervention stigma" can pose an obstacle to the use and adoption of interventions that may otherwise be effective in managing medical conditions. Open-label placebos (OLPs) have been identified as a potential intervention for a variety of clinical and nonclinical conditions but are viewed with skepticism among lay populations.

Purpose: This online experimental study aimed to quantify intervention stigma associated with the use of OLP interventions for a medical condition within a warmth-competence framework of social perception.

Methods: In an online experiment fielded in the USA (N = 541), we randomly assigned participants to read 1 of 4 vignettes about a patient who is administered an OLP intervention by a physician for chronic back pain. In each vignette, the patient's belief in and response to the treatment varied. After reading the vignette, participants rated the patient on several characteristics that captured perceptions of warmth and competence.

Results: We found that patients who believed in the OLP intervention or reported improvement after taking it were perceived as less competent and warmer.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that the use of OLP interventions for medical conditions carries intervention stigma. We contend that this stigma poses an obstacle to the adoption of OLP interventions.

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
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Annals of Behavioral Medicine PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Annals of Behavioral Medicine aims to foster the exchange of knowledge derived from the disciplines involved in the field of behavioral medicine, and the integration of biological, psychosocial, and behavioral factors and principles as they relate to such areas as health promotion, disease prevention, risk factor modification, disease progression, adjustment and adaptation to physical disorders, and rehabilitation. To achieve these goals, much of the journal is devoted to the publication of original empirical articles including reports of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, or other basic and clinical investigations. Integrative reviews of the evidence for the application of behavioral interventions in health care will also be provided. .
×
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