Dunn Laura B, Palmer Barton W, Keehan Monique
Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Schizophr Bull. 2006 Jan;32(1):137-46. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbi069. Epub 2005 Sep 21.
Research protocols frequently necessitate procedures or design elements that differ from those used in routine clinical care. An example is the inclusion of a placebo arm in many randomized clinical trials. Because there are risks to taking a placebo when one has a chronic disorder such as schizophrenia, ascertaining how well people with severe mental illness understand placebos is an important task for empirical research ethics. We investigated whether schizophrenia patients' understanding of placebo controls could be improved with a brief educational intervention. We randomized 49 middle-aged and older patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder to receive either (1) a routine explanation of placebos in the context of consent for a hypothetical double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial, or (2) the consent for the hypothetical trial plus a brief educational module explaining placebos in more depth. Understanding of placebos was assessed with a 12-item questionnaire, and we examined demographic, clinical, neurocognitive, and decision-making correlates of understanding of placebos. Those participants who received the intervention obtained higher scores on the placebo post-test compared to those who received the standard information alone. Performance on the placebo post-test was positively correlated with measures of decisional capacity and neurocognitive abilities and negatively correlated with severity of negative symptoms, but it showed no relationship with positive or general symptoms. Some participants interpreted the common phrase "sugar pill" as relating somehow to diabetes. We conclude that the level of understanding of important research design-related information is not static but may be influenced by how investigators approach the consent process.
研究方案常常需要采用与常规临床护理中所使用的程序或设计要素不同的内容。一个例子是许多随机临床试验中设置了安慰剂组。由于患有精神分裂症等慢性疾病的人服用安慰剂存在风险,因此确定重症精神疾病患者对安慰剂的理解程度是实证研究伦理的一项重要任务。我们调查了简短的教育干预是否能提高精神分裂症患者对安慰剂对照的理解。我们将49名患有精神分裂症或分裂情感性障碍的中老年患者随机分组,使其分别接受:(1)在假设的双盲安慰剂对照临床试验的知情同意过程中对安慰剂进行常规解释;或(2)假设试验的知情同意加上一个更深入解释安慰剂的简短教育模块。通过一份包含12个条目的问卷来评估对安慰剂的理解,并且我们研究了与安慰剂理解相关的人口统计学、临床、神经认知和决策方面的关联因素。与仅接受标准信息的参与者相比,接受干预的参与者在安慰剂后测中获得了更高的分数。安慰剂后测的表现与决策能力和神经认知能力的测量结果呈正相关,与阴性症状的严重程度呈负相关,但与阳性或一般症状无关。一些参与者将常用短语“糖丸”解读为与糖尿病有某种关联。我们得出结论,对重要的研究设计相关信息的理解水平不是固定不变的,而是可能受到研究者进行知情同意过程方式的影响。