Using Positive Attribute Framing to Attenuate Nocebo Side Effects: A Cybersickness Study

Identifying the psychological effects of nocebo education: results from two pre-registered experiments

Providing treatment side effect information to patients increases the risk of harm due to the nocebo effect. Nocebo education, in which patients learn about nocebo effects, is a novel strategy that can be used across a variety of situations and individuals to decrease unpleasant treatment side effects. It is currently unclear which psychological changes are induced by nocebo education, which is information required to maximize this intervention. Two pre-registered studies investigated the effects of nocebo education on side effect expectations, side effect control beliefs, feelings toward treatments, intentions to avoid or seek side effect information, and perceptions of treatment efficacy. In Study 1 (N = 220), adult participants either watched or did not watch a nocebo education intervention video prior to reading vignettes about receiving a surgical treatment for pain and a medication for pain. Study 2 (N = 252) was similar to Study 1, with the inclusion of a health behavior video control group and participants only reading about a medication treatment for pain. In both experiments, nocebo education reduced global side effect expectations and increased side effect self-efficacy beliefs. Nocebo education also increased intentions to avoid side effect information and decreased intentions to seek more side effect information. Evidence was inconclusive on whether nocebo education changes affective associations with the treatments. The findings demonstrate that nocebo education has a multi-faceted influence with the potential to change patient behavior. The results can be used to improve the management of adverse treatment side effects.

Assessing the longevity of attribute framing in attenuating the nocebo effect to brand and generic medication

The perception of taking a generic, relative to brand, medication has been demonstrated to exacerbate the nocebo effect. Conversely, positive attribute framing has been shown to attenuate the nocebo effect. However, little is known about the longevity of positive attribute framing nor how it interacts with generic versus brand treatment cues. Healthy participants (N = 205) were randomised to receive either sham-modafinil capsules with a brand or generic appearance, in conjunction with standard negative side effect framing (brand-negative: N = 42; generic-negative: N = 41) or positive side effect framing (brand-positive: N = 40; generic-positive: N = 40). The remainder were randomised to a no-treatment control (N = 42). Participants were informed that modafinil could enhance alertness and cognitive performance and reduce fatigue. Critically, modafinil was described as having several potential side effects. Treatment-related side effects, alertness, fatigue and cognitive performance were measured at baseline, 30-min post-treatment and 24 h later. Nocebo and placebo effects were observed across modafinil-treated participants relative to control. Positive framing significantly reduced warned side effects for 24 h. Perceived side effect likelihood, severity, and worry mediated the nocebo, but not framing, effect. Results have important implications for the presentation of side effect information, providing a potential route to reduce unwanted negative effects of generic medication.

Mitigating the Nocebo Effect in Biosimilar Use and Switching: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In the context of biosimilar use and switching, a patient's negative perception of a biosimilar might trigger a nocebo effect, where negative expectations unrelated to its pharmacologic action may lead to worsened symptoms, resulting in less perceived therapeutic benefit or worsened adverse events. Considering the crucial role biosimilars have in reducing health care costs and expanding access to safe biologics globally, it is essential to develop and implement effective strategies to mitigate the possible occurrence of such nocebo effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic literature review was two-fold: (i) to review strategies that have been applied and/or tested for minimising the nocebo effect in clinical practice, within and outside the context of biosimilar switching, and (ii) to propose recommendations on useful mitigation strategies to minimise the occurrence of the nocebo effect in the context of biosimilar switching.

METHODS

Biomedical databases PubMed and Embase were screened up until the end of April 2023 with a search string consisting of the following search terms "nocebo", "biosimilar", "mitigation", "strategy", and "prevention" and related synonyms. The search strategy was supplemented by snowballing of the included studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses, the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Of the 1617 identified and screened records, 60 met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 10 (17%) were conducted within the context of biosimilar switching, 7 of which specifically tested strategies to mitigate the nocebo effect. Among the remaining 50 studies conducted outside the biosimilar switching context, 46 tested mitigation strategies. Across the included studies, 13 distinct mitigation strategies were identified, which can be employed within the context of biosimilar switching: (i) open non-verbal communication, (ii) positive framing, (iii) empathic communication, (iv) validating communication, (v) shared decision making, (vi) self-affirmation, (vii) education of patients and health care professionals about the nocebo effect, (viii) education of patients and health care professionals about biosimilars, (ix) soft-skills training for health care professionals, (x) personalised information, (xi) supporting information, (xii) multidisciplinary approach, (xiii) organisation of the switch.

CONCLUSION

This review has identified a set of strategies that have been tested to mitigate the nocebo effect, which can be applied by health care professionals in the context of biosimilar switching with the aim of mitigating the occurrence of a nocebo effect. We recommend implementing a combination of mitigation strategies for patients and health care professionals to utilise before, during, and after a switch. It should be noted that given the limited number of studies specifically testing nocebo mitigation strategies within the biosimilar switching context to date, it is not yet possible to draw definite conclusions about the effect size of each mitigation strategy individually or in combination.

Practitioner warmth and empathy attenuates the nocebo effect and enhances the placebo effect

Augmented patient-practitioner interactions that enhance therapeutic alliance can increase the placebo effect to sham treatment. Little is known, however, about the effect of these interactions on maladaptive health outcomes (i.e., the nocebo effect). Healthy participants (N = 84) were randomised to a 3-day course of Oxytocin nasal drops (actually, sham treatment) in conjunction with a high-warmth interaction (Oxy-HW: N = 28), a low-warmth interaction (Oxy-LW: N = 28) or to a no treatment control group (NT: N = 28). All participants were informed that the Oxytocin treatment could increase psychological well-being but was associated with several potential side effects. Treatment-related side effects, unwarned symptoms, and psychological well-being were measured at baseline and all post-treatment days. Side effect reporting was increased in the Oxy-LW condition compared to the other groups across all days. Conversely, increased psychological well-being was observed in the Oxy-HW condition, relative to the other conditions, but only on Day 1. Among those receiving treatment, positive and negative expectations, and treatment-related worry, did not vary by interaction-style, while psychological well-being and side effect reporting were inversely associated at the level of the individual. Results have important implications for practice, suggesting poorer quality interactions may not only reduce beneficial health outcomes but also exacerbate those that are maladaptive.

Same same, but different: effects of likelihood framing on concerns about a medical disease in patients with somatoform disorders, major depression, and healthy people

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that patients with somatoform disorders (SFD) have difficulty using medical reassurance (i.e. normal results from diagnostic testing) to revise concerns about being seriously ill. In this brief report, we investigated whether deficits in adequately interpreting the likelihood of a medical disease may contribute to this difficulty, and whether patients' concerns are altered by different likelihood framings.

METHODS

Patients with SFD (N = 60), patients with major depression (N = 32), and healthy volunteers (N = 37) were presented with varying likelihoods for the presence of a serious medical disease and were asked how concerned they are about it. The likelihood itself was varied, as was the format in which it was presented (i.e. negative framing focusing on the presence of a disease v. positive framing emphasizing its absence; use of natural frequencies v. percentages).

RESULTS

Patients with SFD reported significantly more concern than depressed patients and healthy people in response to low likelihoods (i.e. 1: 100 000 to 1:10), while the groups were similarly concerned for likelihoods ⩾1:5. Across samples, the same mathematical likelihood caused significantly different levels of concern depending on how it was framed, with the lowest degree of concern for a positive framing approach and higher concern for natural frequencies (e.g. 1:100) than for percentages (e.g. 1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest a specific deficit of patients with SFD in interpreting low likelihoods for the presence of a medical disease. Positive framing approaches and the use of percentages rather than natural frequencies can lower the degree of concern.

The relationship between expectancy, anxiety, and the nocebo effect: a systematic review and meta-analysis with recommendations for future research

Despite the theoretical prominence of expectancy and anxiety as potential mechanisms of the nocebo effect, not all studies measure expectancy and/or anxiety, and there are inconsistent findings among those that do. The present study sought to systematically review and meta-analyse available data to evaluate the relationship between expectancy, anxiety and the nocebo effect. The two key questions were: (1) whether nocebo manipulations influence expectancy and anxiety; and (2) whether expectancy and anxiety are associated with the subsequent nocebo effect. Fifty-nine independent studies (n = 3129) were identified via database searches to 1st August 2021. Nocebo manipulations reliably increased negative expectancy with a large effect (g = .837) and state anxiety with a small effect (g = .312). Changes in expectancy and state anxiety due to the nocebo manipulation were associated with larger nocebo effects (r = .376 and .234, respectively). However, there was no significant association between dispositional anxiety and the nocebo effect. These findings support theories that rely on situationally-induced expectancy and anxiety, but not dispositional anxiety, to explain nocebo effects. Importantly, being malleable, these findings suggest that interventions that target maladaptive negative expectancies and state anxiety could be beneficial for reducing the harm nocebo effects cause across health settings. Recommendations for future research are discussed.

Socially Acquired Nocebo Effects Generalize but Are Not Attenuated by Choice

BACKGROUND

Socially observing a negative treatment-related experience has been shown to modulate our own experience with the same intervention, leading to worsened health outcomes. However, whether this social learning generalizes to similar but distinct interventions has not been explored nor what manipulations can reduce these effects.

PURPOSE

To determine whether socially acquired nocebo effects can be generated by observing a negative experience with a similar, but distinct intervention, and whether choice can reduce these effects.

METHODS

Across three experiments, a community sample of healthy adults (N = 336) either watched a confederate report cybersickness to the same Virtual Reality (VR) activity they were assigned to (Social Modeling: Consistent); a similar, but different VR activity (Social Modeling: Inconsistent); or did not view the confederate (No Social Modeling). Participants were either given choice over the VR (Choice) or assigned by the experimenter (No Choice).

RESULTS

Across the experiments, there was significantly greater cybersickness in both Social Modeling groups relative to No Social Modeling, while the two Social Modeling groups did not differ. There was no significant effect of Choice or a Choice by Social Modeling interaction. Social Modeling elicited greater anxiety and expectancies for cybersickness. Furthermore, these mechanisms mediated the association between social modeling and cybersickness.

CONCLUSIONS

Socially acquired side-effects were demonstrated to generalize to similar, but distinct interventions, highlighting the diffuse and robust effect social modeling can have on our experiences. However, choice did not attenuate the experience of cybersickness, highlighting the need for alternative methods to counteract the effect of social modeling.

Peer-to-peer: The Social Transmission of Symptoms Online

BACKGROUND

Social learning can be highly adaptive-for example, avoiding a hotplate your friend just burnt themselves on-but it has also been implicated in symptom transmission. Social learning is particularly pertinent given the rapid increase in the use of online mediums for social interaction. Yet, little is known about the social transmission of symptoms online or social chains extending further than a single model-observer interaction.

PURPOSE

To explore whether socially induced symptoms could be propagated through a three-generation social transmission chain in an online setting.

METHODS

We explored the social transmission of cybersickness following a virtual reality (VR) experience through online webcam interactions. One hundred and seventy-seven adults viewed a VR video in one of four links along a social transmission chain, after: viewing an actor model cybersickness to the VR video (First-Generation); viewing the First-Generation participant undergo VR (Second-Generation); viewing the Second-Generation participant undergo VR (Third-Generation); or naïve (Control).

RESULTS

Cybersickness was strongest in First-Generation participants, indicating social transmission from the model. This was mediated by expectancy and anxiety. Whether or not subsequent generations experienced cybersickness depended on what the observed participant verbally reported, which is consistent with social transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrate that symptoms can be readily transmitted online, and that expectancy and anxiety are involved. Although it is inconclusive as to whether symptoms can propagate along a social transmission chain, there is some evidence of protection from symptoms when a model who does not report any symptoms is observed. As such, this research highlights the role of social transmission in the modulation of symptoms through virtual mediums.

Role of Psychosomatic Symptoms in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

Vaccination against COVID-19 is one of the highly effective preventative strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection. The rapid approval of COVID-19 vaccination due to the raging pandemic, media coverage, anti-vaccination groups, and concerns about adverse effects associated with vaccination has given rise to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Current evidence suggests that psychosomatic and nocebo-related adverse effects account for a significant proportion of common adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination. The most common adverse effects are headache, fatigue, and myalgia, which are highly prone to nocebo effects. In our review article, we discuss the role of psychosomatic and nocebo effects in COVID-19 vaccination-related hesitancy, predictors of such effects, and strategies to reduce vaccine hesitancy. General education regarding psychosomatic and nocebo effects and specialized education for at-risk populations may reduce psychosomatic and nocebo-related adverse effects following COVID-19 vaccination, ultimately reducing hesitancy.

Social communication pathways to COVID-19 vaccine side-effect expectations and experience

OBJECTIVE

Negative beliefs about medication and vaccine side-effects can spread rapidly through social communication. This has been recently documented with the potential side-effects from the COVID-19 vaccines. We tested if pre-vaccination social communications about side-effects from personal acquaintances, news reports, and social media predict post-vaccination side-effect experiences. Further, as previous research suggests that side-effects can be exacerbated by negative expectations, we assessed if personal expectations mediate the relationships between social communication and side-effect experience.

METHOD

In a prospective longitudinal survey (N = 551), COVID-19 vaccine side-effect information from three sources-social media posts, news reports, and first-hand accounts from personal acquaintances-as well as side-effect expectations, were self-reported pre-vaccination. Vaccination side-effect experience was assessed post-vaccination.

RESULTS

In multivariate regression analyses, the number of pre-vaccination social media post views (β = 0.17) and impressions of severity conveyed from personal acquaintances (β = 0.42) significantly predicted an increase in pre-vaccination side-effect expectations, and the same variables (βs = 0.11, 0.14, respectively) predicted post-vaccination side-effect experiences. Moreover, pre-vaccination side-effect expectations mediated the relationship between both sources of social communication and experienced side-effects from a COVID-19 vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies links between personal acquaintance and social media communications and vaccine side-effect experiences and provides evidence that pre-vaccination expectations account for these relationships. The results suggest that modifying side-effect expectations through these channels may change the side-effects following a COVID-19 vaccination as well as other publicly discussed vaccinations and medications.