Boehm Katja, Berger Bettina, Weger Ulrich, Heusser Peter
Faculty of Health, Institute for Integrative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, 58448 Witten, Germany; Faculty of Health, Department of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Witten/Herdecke University, 58448 Witten, Germany.
Faculty of Health, Institute for Integrative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, 58448 Witten, Germany.
JRSM Open. 2017 Feb 1;8(3):2054270416681434. doi: 10.1177/2054270416681434. eCollection 2017 Mar.
Personalised and contextualised care has been turned into a major demand by people involved in healthcare suggesting to move toward person-centred medicine. The assessment of person-centred medicine can be most effectively achieved if treatments are investigated using 'with versus without' person-centredness or integrative study designs. However, this assumes that the components of an integrative or person-centred intervention have an additive relationship to produce the total effect. Beecher's model of additivity assumes an additive relation between placebo and drug effects and is thus presenting an arithmetic summation. So far, no review has been carried out assessing the validity of the additive model, which is to be questioned and more closely investigated in this review. Initial searches for primary studies were undertaken in July 2016 using Pubmed and Google Scholar. In order to find matching publications of similar magnitude for the comparison part of this review, corresponding matches for all included reviews were sought. A total of 22 reviews and 3 clinical and experimental studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The results pointed to the following factors actively questioning the additive model: interactions of various effects, trial design, conditioning, context effects and factors, neurobiological factors, mechanism of action, statistical factors, intervention-specific factors (alcohol, caffeine), side-effects and type of intervention. All but one of the closely assessed publications was questioning the additive model. A closer examination of study design is necessary. An attempt in a more systematic approach geared towards solutions could be a suggestion for future research in this field.
个性化和情境化护理已成为医疗保健相关人员的一项主要需求,这表明要朝着以患者为中心的医学发展。如果使用“有与没有”以患者为中心或综合研究设计来研究治疗方法,那么对以患者为中心的医学的评估就能最有效地实现。然而,这假定综合或以患者为中心的干预措施的各个组成部分具有累加关系才能产生总体效果。比彻的累加模型假定安慰剂和药物效果之间存在累加关系,因此呈现的是算术求和。到目前为止,尚未有综述对累加模型的有效性进行评估,本综述将对此提出质疑并进行更深入的研究。2016年7月使用PubMed和谷歌学术对原始研究进行了初步检索。为了找到与本综述比较部分规模相似的匹配出版物,对所有纳入综述的相应匹配项进行了查找。共有22篇综述以及3项临床和实验研究符合纳入标准。结果指出了以下积极质疑累加模型的因素:各种效应的相互作用、试验设计、条件作用、情境效应和因素、神经生物学因素、作用机制、统计因素、干预特定因素(酒精、咖啡因)、副作用以及干预类型。除一篇外,所有经过仔细评估的出版物都对累加模型提出了质疑。有必要对研究设计进行更深入的审查。以更系统的方法尝试寻找解决方案可能是该领域未来研究的一个建议。