School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Department of Psychology, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA.
Ann Behav Med. 2019 Jun 4;53(7):621-629. doi: 10.1093/abm/kay071.
One contributing factor to the development of nocebo effects is information provided about possible side effects. However, nondisclosure of information can be problematic.
We assessed whether positively framed side effect information (highlighting likelihood of not experiencing side effects) can reduce nocebo effects compared to negatively framed information (highlighting likelihood of experiencing side effects).
One hundred twelve participants took part in research ostensibly assessing the influence of benzodiazepines (actually sham capsules) on anxiety. Participants were randomized to receive a sham capsule with positively or negatively framed information about four side effects, or a no-treatment control condition. Side effect expectations were assessed after information provision. Framed side effects and other unmentioned symptoms were assessed during the session and 24-hr follow-up.
Nocebo effects occurred in symptoms presented as side effects (regardless of framing) during the study session and follow-up (ps < .003). At follow-up, there was also a nocebo effect in other unmentioned symptoms (p = .018). Positive framing reduced side effect symptoms compared with negative framing during the study session (p = .037), but this effect was no longer present at follow-up (p = .53). Side effect expectations did not differ between the framing conditions (p = .14).
Positive framing reduced side effects short-term, but not at follow-up. Expectations did not differ between negative and positive framing. Nocebo effects appeared to generalize to other unmentioned symptoms over a 24-hr period. Further research is needed to determine whether the initial impact of positive framing can be maintained over time.
产生安慰剂效应的一个因素是提供关于可能副作用的信息。然而,不披露信息可能会产生问题。
我们评估了积极描述副作用信息(强调不太可能经历副作用的可能性)是否比消极描述信息(强调可能经历副作用的可能性)更能减少安慰剂效应。
112 名参与者参与了一项表面上评估苯二氮䓬类药物(实际上是假胶囊)对焦虑影响的研究。参与者被随机分配接受带有积极或消极描述四种副作用信息的假胶囊,或不接受治疗的对照组。在提供信息后评估副作用期望。在会议期间和 24 小时随访期间评估框架副作用和其他未提及的症状。
无论框架如何,在研究期间和随访期间,作为副作用出现的症状(regardless of framing)都出现了安慰剂效应(ps <.003)。在随访时,其他未提及的症状也出现了安慰剂效应(p =.018)。与消极框架相比,积极框架在研究期间减少了副作用症状(p =.037),但在随访时这种效应不再存在(p =.53)。框架条件之间的副作用期望没有差异(p =.14)。
积极的框架在短期内减少了副作用,但在随访时没有。在消极和积极框架之间,期望没有差异。安慰剂效应似乎在 24 小时内扩展到其他未提及的症状。需要进一步研究以确定积极框架的初始影响是否可以随着时间的推移保持。