Explaining placebo effects in an online survey study: Does 'Pavlov' ring a bell?
Despite the increasing knowledge about placebo effects and their beneficial impact on treatment outcomes, strategies that explicitly employ these mechanisms remain scarce. To benefit from placebo effects, it is important to gain better understanding in how individuals want to be informed about place...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-03, Vol.16 (3), p.e0247103-e0247103 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0247103 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | e0247103 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Smits, Rosanne M Veldhuijzen, Dieuwke S Olde Hartman, Tim Peerdeman, Kaya J Van Vliet, Liesbeth M Van Middendorp, Henriët Rippe, Ralph C A Wulffraat, Nico M Evers, Andrea W M |
| description | Despite the increasing knowledge about placebo effects and their beneficial impact on treatment outcomes, strategies that explicitly employ these mechanisms remain scarce. To benefit from placebo effects, it is important to gain better understanding in how individuals want to be informed about placebo effects (for example about the underlying mechanisms that steer placebo effects). The main aim of this study was to investigate placebo information strategies in a general population sample by assessing current placebo knowledge, preferences for different placebo explanations (built around well-known mechanisms involved in placebo effects), and attitudes and acceptability towards the use of placebo effects in treatment.
Online survey.
Leiden, The Netherlands.
444 participants (377 completers), aged 16-78 years.
Current placebo knowledge, placebo explanation preferences, and placebo attitudes and acceptability.
Participants scored high on current placebo knowledge (correct answers: M = 81.15%, SD = 12.75). Comparisons of 8 different placebo explanations revealed that participants preferred explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations more than all other explanations (F(7, 368) = 3.618, p = .001). Furthermore, attitudes and acceptability for placebos in treatment varied for the type of the condition (i.e. more acceptant for psychological complaints) and participants indicated that physicians do not always have to be honest while making use of placebo effects for therapeutic benefit.
Our results brought forth new evidence in placebo information strategies, and indicated that explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations were most preferred. These results can be insightful to construct placebo information strategies for both clinical context and research practices. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0247103 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2500367499</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A654635462</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4573bcea41c54eca99d153479852c711</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A654635462</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1da2837a9290a6264e7db534fe89df1ece739dfd0bd80836033535dd358427363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1v0zAUhiMEYqPwDxBEmsTgosUfiR1zAZrGgEqTNvF1a7n2SevJtUucVOu_x22zqUG7QJGVI_t5X9vHb5a9xGiCKcfvb0LXeOUmq-BhgkjBMaKPsmMsKBkzgujjg_ooexbjDUIlrRh7mh1RylMt-HF2fXG7csp66-d5KjTMQg51DbqNufW58nnwznrIY9esYZPHtjObD_nnADE_vVZrF9anebNVq3wGzn16nj2plYvwov-Psl9fLn6efxtfXn2dnp9djjUTpB1jo0hFuRJEIMUIK4CbWUmLGiphagwaOE2FQTNToYoyRGlJS2NoWRWEU0ZH2eu978qFKPtmRElKhCjjhRCJmO4JE9SNXDV2qZqNDMrK3URo5lI1rdUOZFFyOtOgCqzLArQSwuB0GC6qkmiOcfL62O_WzZZgNPi2UW5gOlzxdiHnYS25KHG1M3jbGzThTwexlUsbdWqY8hC63bkxYZikZxllJ_-gD9-up-YqXcD6OqR99dZUnrGyYDQNkqjJA1T6DCytTsmpbZofCN4NBIlp4badqy5GOf3x_f_Zq99D9s0BuwDl2kUMrmtt8HEIFntQNyHGBur7JmMkt8G_64bcBl_2wU-yV4cPdC-6Szr9C3dP-ts</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2500367499</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Explaining placebo effects in an online survey study: Does 'Pavlov' ring a bell?</title><source>PLoS</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Smits, Rosanne M ; Veldhuijzen, Dieuwke S ; Olde Hartman, Tim ; Peerdeman, Kaya J ; Van Vliet, Liesbeth M ; Van Middendorp, Henriët ; Rippe, Ralph C A ; Wulffraat, Nico M ; Evers, Andrea W M</creator><creatorcontrib>Smits, Rosanne M ; Veldhuijzen, Dieuwke S ; Olde Hartman, Tim ; Peerdeman, Kaya J ; Van Vliet, Liesbeth M ; Van Middendorp, Henriët ; Rippe, Ralph C A ; Wulffraat, Nico M ; Evers, Andrea W M</creatorcontrib><description>Despite the increasing knowledge about placebo effects and their beneficial impact on treatment outcomes, strategies that explicitly employ these mechanisms remain scarce. To benefit from placebo effects, it is important to gain better understanding in how individuals want to be informed about placebo effects (for example about the underlying mechanisms that steer placebo effects). The main aim of this study was to investigate placebo information strategies in a general population sample by assessing current placebo knowledge, preferences for different placebo explanations (built around well-known mechanisms involved in placebo effects), and attitudes and acceptability towards the use of placebo effects in treatment.
Online survey.
Leiden, The Netherlands.
444 participants (377 completers), aged 16-78 years.
Current placebo knowledge, placebo explanation preferences, and placebo attitudes and acceptability.
Participants scored high on current placebo knowledge (correct answers: M = 81.15%, SD = 12.75). Comparisons of 8 different placebo explanations revealed that participants preferred explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations more than all other explanations (F(7, 368) = 3.618, p = .001). Furthermore, attitudes and acceptability for placebos in treatment varied for the type of the condition (i.e. more acceptant for psychological complaints) and participants indicated that physicians do not always have to be honest while making use of placebo effects for therapeutic benefit.
Our results brought forth new evidence in placebo information strategies, and indicated that explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations were most preferred. These results can be insightful to construct placebo information strategies for both clinical context and research practices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247103</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33705397</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Attitudes ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Brain research ; Classical conditioning ; Clinical medicine ; Cognition & reasoning ; Health surveys ; Immunology ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Neurobiology ; Neuropsychology ; Patients ; Pediatrics ; People and Places ; Physical Sciences ; Placebo effect ; Placebos ; Psychological aspects ; Psychological research ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Rheumatology ; Social networks ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-03, Vol.16 (3), p.e0247103-e0247103</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Smits et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Smits et al 2021 Smits et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1da2837a9290a6264e7db534fe89df1ece739dfd0bd80836033535dd358427363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1da2837a9290a6264e7db534fe89df1ece739dfd0bd80836033535dd358427363</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2682-2654 ; 0000-0002-0090-5091</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951811/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951811/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33705397$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Smits, Rosanne M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veldhuijzen, Dieuwke S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olde Hartman, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peerdeman, Kaya J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Vliet, Liesbeth M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Middendorp, Henriët</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rippe, Ralph C A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wulffraat, Nico M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evers, Andrea W M</creatorcontrib><title>Explaining placebo effects in an online survey study: Does 'Pavlov' ring a bell?</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Despite the increasing knowledge about placebo effects and their beneficial impact on treatment outcomes, strategies that explicitly employ these mechanisms remain scarce. To benefit from placebo effects, it is important to gain better understanding in how individuals want to be informed about placebo effects (for example about the underlying mechanisms that steer placebo effects). The main aim of this study was to investigate placebo information strategies in a general population sample by assessing current placebo knowledge, preferences for different placebo explanations (built around well-known mechanisms involved in placebo effects), and attitudes and acceptability towards the use of placebo effects in treatment.
Online survey.
Leiden, The Netherlands.
444 participants (377 completers), aged 16-78 years.
Current placebo knowledge, placebo explanation preferences, and placebo attitudes and acceptability.
Participants scored high on current placebo knowledge (correct answers: M = 81.15%, SD = 12.75). Comparisons of 8 different placebo explanations revealed that participants preferred explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations more than all other explanations (F(7, 368) = 3.618, p = .001). Furthermore, attitudes and acceptability for placebos in treatment varied for the type of the condition (i.e. more acceptant for psychological complaints) and participants indicated that physicians do not always have to be honest while making use of placebo effects for therapeutic benefit.
Our results brought forth new evidence in placebo information strategies, and indicated that explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations were most preferred. These results can be insightful to construct placebo information strategies for both clinical context and research practices.</description><subject>Attitudes</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Brain research</subject><subject>Classical conditioning</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Health surveys</subject><subject>Immunology</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Neurobiology</subject><subject>Neuropsychology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Placebo effect</subject><subject>Placebos</subject><subject>Psychological aspects</subject><subject>Psychological research</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Rheumatology</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1v0zAUhiMEYqPwDxBEmsTgosUfiR1zAZrGgEqTNvF1a7n2SevJtUucVOu_x22zqUG7QJGVI_t5X9vHb5a9xGiCKcfvb0LXeOUmq-BhgkjBMaKPsmMsKBkzgujjg_ooexbjDUIlrRh7mh1RylMt-HF2fXG7csp66-d5KjTMQg51DbqNufW58nnwznrIY9esYZPHtjObD_nnADE_vVZrF9anebNVq3wGzn16nj2plYvwov-Psl9fLn6efxtfXn2dnp9djjUTpB1jo0hFuRJEIMUIK4CbWUmLGiphagwaOE2FQTNToYoyRGlJS2NoWRWEU0ZH2eu978qFKPtmRElKhCjjhRCJmO4JE9SNXDV2qZqNDMrK3URo5lI1rdUOZFFyOtOgCqzLArQSwuB0GC6qkmiOcfL62O_WzZZgNPi2UW5gOlzxdiHnYS25KHG1M3jbGzThTwexlUsbdWqY8hC63bkxYZikZxllJ_-gD9-up-YqXcD6OqR99dZUnrGyYDQNkqjJA1T6DCytTsmpbZofCN4NBIlp4badqy5GOf3x_f_Zq99D9s0BuwDl2kUMrmtt8HEIFntQNyHGBur7JmMkt8G_64bcBl_2wU-yV4cPdC-6Szr9C3dP-ts</recordid><startdate>20210311</startdate><enddate>20210311</enddate><creator>Smits, Rosanne M</creator><creator>Veldhuijzen, Dieuwke S</creator><creator>Olde Hartman, Tim</creator><creator>Peerdeman, Kaya J</creator><creator>Van Vliet, Liesbeth M</creator><creator>Van Middendorp, Henriët</creator><creator>Rippe, Ralph C A</creator><creator>Wulffraat, Nico M</creator><creator>Evers, Andrea W M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2682-2654</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0090-5091</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210311</creationdate><title>Explaining placebo effects in an online survey study: Does 'Pavlov' ring a bell?</title><author>Smits, Rosanne M ; Veldhuijzen, Dieuwke S ; Olde Hartman, Tim ; Peerdeman, Kaya J ; Van Vliet, Liesbeth M ; Van Middendorp, Henriët ; Rippe, Ralph C A ; Wulffraat, Nico M ; Evers, Andrea W M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-1da2837a9290a6264e7db534fe89df1ece739dfd0bd80836033535dd358427363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Attitudes</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Brain research</topic><topic>Classical conditioning</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Health surveys</topic><topic>Immunology</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Neurobiology</topic><topic>Neuropsychology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Placebo effect</topic><topic>Placebos</topic><topic>Psychological aspects</topic><topic>Psychological research</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Rheumatology</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Smits, Rosanne M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veldhuijzen, Dieuwke S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olde Hartman, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peerdeman, Kaya J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Vliet, Liesbeth M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Middendorp, Henriët</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rippe, Ralph C A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wulffraat, Nico M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evers, Andrea W M</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Opposing Viewpoints In Context</collection><collection>Science In Context</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Smits, Rosanne M</au><au>Veldhuijzen, Dieuwke S</au><au>Olde Hartman, Tim</au><au>Peerdeman, Kaya J</au><au>Van Vliet, Liesbeth M</au><au>Van Middendorp, Henriët</au><au>Rippe, Ralph C A</au><au>Wulffraat, Nico M</au><au>Evers, Andrea W M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Explaining placebo effects in an online survey study: Does 'Pavlov' ring a bell?</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-03-11</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>e0247103</spage><epage>e0247103</epage><pages>e0247103-e0247103</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Despite the increasing knowledge about placebo effects and their beneficial impact on treatment outcomes, strategies that explicitly employ these mechanisms remain scarce. To benefit from placebo effects, it is important to gain better understanding in how individuals want to be informed about placebo effects (for example about the underlying mechanisms that steer placebo effects). The main aim of this study was to investigate placebo information strategies in a general population sample by assessing current placebo knowledge, preferences for different placebo explanations (built around well-known mechanisms involved in placebo effects), and attitudes and acceptability towards the use of placebo effects in treatment.
Online survey.
Leiden, The Netherlands.
444 participants (377 completers), aged 16-78 years.
Current placebo knowledge, placebo explanation preferences, and placebo attitudes and acceptability.
Participants scored high on current placebo knowledge (correct answers: M = 81.15%, SD = 12.75). Comparisons of 8 different placebo explanations revealed that participants preferred explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations more than all other explanations (F(7, 368) = 3.618, p = .001). Furthermore, attitudes and acceptability for placebos in treatment varied for the type of the condition (i.e. more acceptant for psychological complaints) and participants indicated that physicians do not always have to be honest while making use of placebo effects for therapeutic benefit.
Our results brought forth new evidence in placebo information strategies, and indicated that explanations based on brain mechanisms and positive expectations were most preferred. These results can be insightful to construct placebo information strategies for both clinical context and research practices.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33705397</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0247103</doi><tpages>e0247103</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2682-2654</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0090-5091</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2021-03, Vol.16 (3), p.e0247103-e0247103 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2500367499 |
| source | PLoS; PubMed Central; Directory of Open Access Journals; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
| subjects | Attitudes Biology and Life Sciences Brain research Classical conditioning Clinical medicine Cognition & reasoning Health surveys Immunology Medicine and Health Sciences Neurobiology Neuropsychology Patients Pediatrics People and Places Physical Sciences Placebo effect Placebos Psychological aspects Psychological research Research and Analysis Methods Rheumatology Social networks Social Sciences |
| title | Explaining placebo effects in an online survey study: Does 'Pavlov' ring a bell? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T19%3A14%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Explaining%20placebo%20effects%20in%20an%20online%20survey%20study:%20Does%20'Pavlov'%20ring%20a%20bell?&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Smits,%20Rosanne%20M&rft.date=2021-03-11&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=e0247103&rft.epage=e0247103&rft.pages=e0247103-e0247103&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0247103&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA654635462%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2500367499&rft_id=info:pmid/33705397&rft_galeid=A654635462&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_4573bcea41c54eca99d153479852c711&rfr_iscdi=true |