Fässler Margrit, Gnädinger Markus, Rosemann Thomas, Biller-Andorno Nikola
Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Aug 10;9:144. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-144.
Placebo interventions can have meaningful effects for patients. However, little is known about the circumstances of their use in clinical practice. We aimed to investigate to what extent and in which way Swiss primary care providers use placebo interventions. Furthermore we explored their ideas about the ethical and legal issues involved.
599 questionnaires were sent to general practitioners (GPs) and paediatricians in private practice in the Canton of Zurich in Switzerland. To allow for subgroup analysis GPs in urban, suburban, and rural areas as well as paediatricians were selected in an even ratio.
233 questionnaires were completed (response rate 47%). 28% of participants reported that they never used placebo interventions. More participants used impure placebos therapeutically than pure placebos (57% versus 17%, McNemar's chi(2) = 78, p < 0.001). There is not one clear main reason for placebo prescription. Placebo use was communicated to patients mostly as being "a drug or a therapy" (64%). The most frequently chosen ethical premise was that they "can be used as long as the physician and the patient work together in partnership" (60% for pure and 75% for impure placebos, McNemar's chi(2) = 12, p < 0.001). A considerable number of participants (11-38%) were indecisive about statements regarding the ethical and legal legitimacy of using placebos.
The data obtained from Swiss primary care providers reflect a broad variety of views about placebo interventions as well as a widespread uncertainty regarding their legitimacy. Primary care providers seem to preferentially use impure as compared to pure placebos in their daily practice. An intense debate is required on appropriate standards regarding the clinical use of placebo interventions among medical professionals.
安慰剂干预对患者可能产生有意义的效果。然而,对于其在临床实践中的使用情况知之甚少。我们旨在调查瑞士初级保健提供者使用安慰剂干预的程度和方式。此外,我们探讨了他们对所涉及的伦理和法律问题的看法。
向瑞士苏黎世州的私人执业全科医生(GP)和儿科医生发送了599份问卷。为了进行亚组分析,则按相同比例选择了城市、郊区和农村地区的全科医生以及儿科医生。
共完成233份问卷(回复率47%)。28%的参与者报告他们从未使用过安慰剂干预。与纯安慰剂相比,更多参与者在治疗中使用不纯安慰剂(57%对17%,McNemar卡方检验χ² = 78,p < 0.001)。安慰剂处方没有一个明确的主要原因。安慰剂的使用大多向患者说明是“一种药物或一种治疗”(64%)。最常选择的伦理前提是“只要医生和患者合作就可以使用”(纯安慰剂为60%,不纯安慰剂为75%,McNemar卡方检验χ² = 12,p < 0.001)。相当多的参与者(11 - 38%)对于使用安慰剂的伦理和法律合法性声明犹豫不决。
从瑞士初级保健提供者获得的数据反映了对安慰剂干预的广泛观点以及对其合法性的普遍不确定性。在日常实践中,初级保健提供者似乎更倾向于使用不纯安慰剂而非纯安慰剂。医学专业人员需要就安慰剂干预临床使用的适当标准展开激烈辩论。