Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
ACT Works Ltd, Portsmouth, UK.
BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 18;10(2):e032524. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032524.
To better understand which theoretically plausible placebogenic techniques might be acceptable in UK primary care.
A qualitative study using nominal group technique and thematic analysis. Participants took part in audio-recorded face-to-face nominal groups in which the researcher presented six scenarios describing the application in primary care of theoretically plausible placebogenic techniques: (1) Withholding side effects information, (2) Monitoring, (3) General practitioner (GP) endorsement, (4) Idealised consultation, (5) Deceptive placebo pills and (6) Open-label placebo pills. Participants voted on whether they thought each scenario was acceptable in practice and discussed their reasoning. Votes were tallied and discussions transcribed verbatim.
Primary care in England.
21 GPs in four nominal groups and 20 'expert patients' in five nominal groups.
Participants found it hard to decide which practices were acceptable and spoke about needing to weigh potential symptomatic benefits against the potential harms of lost trust eroding the therapeutic relationship. Primary care patients and doctors felt it was acceptable to harness placebo effects in practice by patient self-monitoring (scenario 2), by the GP expressing a strongly positive belief in a therapy (scenario 3) and by conducting patient-centred, empathic consultations (scenario 4). Deceptive placebogenic practices (scenarios 1 and 5) were unacceptable to most groups. Patient and GP groups expressed a diverse range of opinions about open-label placebo pills.
Attempts to harness placebo effects in UK primary care are more likely to be accepted and implemented if they focus on enhancing positive patient-centred communication and empathic relationships. Using placebos deceptively is likely to be unacceptable to both GPs and patients. Open-label placebos also do not have clear support; they might be acceptable to some doctors and patients in very limited circumstances-but further evidence, clear information and guidance would be needed.
更好地了解在英国初级保健中哪些理论上合理的安慰剂效应技术可能是可以接受的。
使用名义群体技术和主题分析的定性研究。参与者参加了录音面对面的名义群体,研究人员在其中介绍了六种描述在初级保健中应用理论上合理的安慰剂效应技术的情景:(1)隐瞒副作用信息,(2)监测,(3)全科医生(GP)认可,(4)理想化咨询,(5)欺骗性安慰剂丸和(6)开放标签安慰剂丸。参与者投票决定他们是否认为每个情景在实践中是可以接受的,并讨论了他们的理由。票数被统计,讨论逐字记录。
英格兰的初级保健。
四名名义群体中的 21 名全科医生和五名名义群体中的 20 名“专家患者”。
参与者发现很难决定哪些做法是可以接受的,并谈到需要权衡潜在的症状益处与失去信任破坏治疗关系的潜在危害。初级保健患者和医生认为,通过患者自我监测(情景 2)、GP 表达对治疗的强烈积极信念(情景 3)和进行以患者为中心、有同理心的咨询(情景 4),在实践中利用安慰剂效应是可以接受的。大多数群体都不能接受欺骗性的安慰剂效应技术(情景 1 和 5)。患者和 GP 群体对开放标签安慰剂丸表达了各种不同的看法。
如果英国初级保健中利用安慰剂效应的尝试侧重于增强积极的以患者为中心的沟通和同理心关系,那么这些尝试更有可能被接受和实施。欺骗性地使用安慰剂很可能会被全科医生和患者都无法接受。开放标签安慰剂丸也没有明确的支持;在某些情况下,它们可能会被一些医生和患者接受,但需要更多的证据、明确的信息和指导。