Cargando…

When and Why Placebo-Prescribing Is Acceptable and Unacceptable: A Focus Group Study of Patients' Views

BACKGROUND: Surveys of doctors suggest that they use placebos and placebo effects clinically to help patients. However, patients' views are not well-understood. We aimed to identify when and why placebo-prescribing in primary care might be acceptable and unacceptable to patients. METHODS: A pur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bishop, Felicity L., Aizlewood, Lizzi, Adams, Alison E. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25006673
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101822
_version_ 1782325195514576896
author Bishop, Felicity L.
Aizlewood, Lizzi
Adams, Alison E. M.
author_facet Bishop, Felicity L.
Aizlewood, Lizzi
Adams, Alison E. M.
author_sort Bishop, Felicity L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Surveys of doctors suggest that they use placebos and placebo effects clinically to help patients. However, patients' views are not well-understood. We aimed to identify when and why placebo-prescribing in primary care might be acceptable and unacceptable to patients. METHODS: A purposive diverse sample of 58 English-speaking adults (18 men; aged 19–80 years) participated in 11 focus groups. Vignettes describing doctors prescribing placebos in primary care were used to initiate discussions. Data were analyzed inductively. RESULTS: Participants discussed diverse harms and benefits of placebo-prescribing for individual patients, carers, healthcare providers, and society. Two perspectives on placebo-prescribing were identified. First, the “consequentialist” perspective focused on the potential for beneficial outcomes of placebo-prescribing. Here, some participants thought placebos are beneficial and should be used clinically; they often invoked the power of the mind or mind-body interactions. Others saw placebos as ineffective and therefore a waste of time and money. Second, the “respecting autonomy” perspective emphasized the harms caused by the deceptive processes thought necessary for placebo-prescribing. Here, participants judged placebo-prescribing unacceptable because placebo-prescribers deceive patients, thus a doctor who prescribes placebos cannot be trusted and patients' autonomy is compromised. They also saw placebo-responders as gullible, which deterred them from trying placebos themselves. Overall, the word “placebo” was often thought to imply “ineffective”; some participants suggested alternative carefully chosen language that could enable doctors to prescribe placebos without directly lying to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Negative views of placebos derive from beliefs that placebos do not work and/or that they require deception by the doctor. Positive views are pragmatic in that if placebos work then any associated processes (e.g. mechanisms, deception) are deemed unimportant. Public education about placebos and their effects is warranted and research to identify optimal ways of harnessing placebo effects in clinical practice is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4089920
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40899202014-07-14 When and Why Placebo-Prescribing Is Acceptable and Unacceptable: A Focus Group Study of Patients' Views Bishop, Felicity L. Aizlewood, Lizzi Adams, Alison E. M. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Surveys of doctors suggest that they use placebos and placebo effects clinically to help patients. However, patients' views are not well-understood. We aimed to identify when and why placebo-prescribing in primary care might be acceptable and unacceptable to patients. METHODS: A purposive diverse sample of 58 English-speaking adults (18 men; aged 19–80 years) participated in 11 focus groups. Vignettes describing doctors prescribing placebos in primary care were used to initiate discussions. Data were analyzed inductively. RESULTS: Participants discussed diverse harms and benefits of placebo-prescribing for individual patients, carers, healthcare providers, and society. Two perspectives on placebo-prescribing were identified. First, the “consequentialist” perspective focused on the potential for beneficial outcomes of placebo-prescribing. Here, some participants thought placebos are beneficial and should be used clinically; they often invoked the power of the mind or mind-body interactions. Others saw placebos as ineffective and therefore a waste of time and money. Second, the “respecting autonomy” perspective emphasized the harms caused by the deceptive processes thought necessary for placebo-prescribing. Here, participants judged placebo-prescribing unacceptable because placebo-prescribers deceive patients, thus a doctor who prescribes placebos cannot be trusted and patients' autonomy is compromised. They also saw placebo-responders as gullible, which deterred them from trying placebos themselves. Overall, the word “placebo” was often thought to imply “ineffective”; some participants suggested alternative carefully chosen language that could enable doctors to prescribe placebos without directly lying to patients. CONCLUSIONS: Negative views of placebos derive from beliefs that placebos do not work and/or that they require deception by the doctor. Positive views are pragmatic in that if placebos work then any associated processes (e.g. mechanisms, deception) are deemed unimportant. Public education about placebos and their effects is warranted and research to identify optimal ways of harnessing placebo effects in clinical practice is needed. Public Library of Science 2014-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4089920/ /pubmed/25006673 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101822 Text en © 2014 Bishop et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bishop, Felicity L.
Aizlewood, Lizzi
Adams, Alison E. M.
When and Why Placebo-Prescribing Is Acceptable and Unacceptable: A Focus Group Study of Patients' Views
title When and Why Placebo-Prescribing Is Acceptable and Unacceptable: A Focus Group Study of Patients' Views
title_full When and Why Placebo-Prescribing Is Acceptable and Unacceptable: A Focus Group Study of Patients' Views
title_fullStr When and Why Placebo-Prescribing Is Acceptable and Unacceptable: A Focus Group Study of Patients' Views
title_full_unstemmed When and Why Placebo-Prescribing Is Acceptable and Unacceptable: A Focus Group Study of Patients' Views
title_short When and Why Placebo-Prescribing Is Acceptable and Unacceptable: A Focus Group Study of Patients' Views
title_sort when and why placebo-prescribing is acceptable and unacceptable: a focus group study of patients' views
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4089920/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25006673
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101822
work_keys_str_mv AT bishopfelicityl whenandwhyplaceboprescribingisacceptableandunacceptableafocusgroupstudyofpatientsviews
AT aizlewoodlizzi whenandwhyplaceboprescribingisacceptableandunacceptableafocusgroupstudyofpatientsviews
AT adamsalisonem whenandwhyplaceboprescribingisacceptableandunacceptableafocusgroupstudyofpatientsviews