Ethical issues surrounding the study of nocebo effects: Recommendations for deceptive research

Truthfulness as the basis for ethical safeguards in deceptive research: An interview study with researchers

Ethical safeguards such as debriefing are often recommended or required for research studies in which participants are deceived. However, existing guidance on these safeguards seems insufficiently coherent and precise, which may be associated with their suboptimal implementation in practice. This study aimed to contribute to a more coherent and precise framework of ethical safeguards in deceptive studies through semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of 24 researchers who had significant experience with deception. Interviewees discussed which ethical safeguards they implemented and how, as well as their relation to the notion of truthfulness (i.e., the intentional communication of true information). Moreover, interviewees provided a variety of reasons for and against implementing these safeguards, as well as how these reasons varied with the particular context of a study. Overall, the current study contributes to a more coherent and precise understanding of ethical safeguards in deceptive research that could be useful for guiding researchers and ethics reviewers in their ethical decision-making, although certain imprecisions and incoherent aspects remain in need of further investigation and normative reflection.

Nocebo response in dentistry: A systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in analgesic trials of third molar removal

BACKGROUND

The nocebo response refers to the phenomenon where non-specific factors, including negative verbal suggestion and treatment expectations, cause adverse events (AE) following a placebo treatment. Non-specific factors are also likely to influence AE occurrence following administration of active pharmacological treatments.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the nocebo response in dentistry by assessing the AEs prevalence in placebo- and active arms of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing analgesic treatment following third molar (M3) surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to report the number of patients experiencing at least one drug-related AE (patients with AE ≥ 1) separately for the active and placebo arms. The proportion of patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts were pooled, and risk differences (RDs) between patients in the placebo- and active arm were calculated.

RESULTS

In 50 independent RCTs of 47 identified articles, the pooled rates of patients with AE ≥ 1 were 22.8% in the placebo arm and 20.6% in the active arm. The pooled rates of drug-related dropout were 0.24% in the placebo arm and 0.08% in the active arm. There were no significant RDs in patients with AE ≥ 1 and drug-related dropouts.

CONCLUSION

These results show that patients in the placebo arm reported AEs to the same extent as patients receiving active treatment, suggesting that most AEs in analgesic medication following M3 surgery may be attributed to the nocebo phenomenon.

What is the nocebo effect and does it apply to dentistry? A narrative review

Background

Evidence for the nocebo effect, a phenomenon characterised by suboptimal treatment efficacy, worsening of symptoms, or the occurrence of adverse events caused by an individual’s negative treatment expectations, is growing across a multitude of medical fields. However, little attention has been paid to patients’ negative expectations and the nocebo effect within dentistry.

Aim

This review summarises essential evidence of the nocebo phenomenon especially in relation to pain and drug administration. Subsequently, an overview of the current evidence of the nocebo phenomenon in the dental field is presented.

Methods

A PubMed search was performed using keywords related to “nocebo,” “placebo,” “expectations,” and “dentistry.” In addition to the articles selected from the search, placebo/nocebo researchers and dental researchers added important references from their respective fields.

Results

Although research on the nocebo effect in dentistry is limited, available current evidence suggests that the factors, which is related to the nocebo effect are likely to play a role in dental practice.

Conclusion

Preliminary evidence from the review warrants further investigation into the nocebo effect in dentistry. Finally, based on the general knowledge of the nocebo effect, the review indicates fruitful arrays of research into the nocebo effect in dentistry.

Predicting Expectations of Side-Effects for Those Which Are Warned Versus Not Warned About in Patient Information Leaflets

BACKGROUND

Research investigating predictors of side-effect expectations is disparate and largely based on hypothetical vignettes.

PURPOSE

To carry out a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial and investigate the predictors of side-effect expectations for side-effects that were, or were not, warned about.

METHODS

Two hundred and three healthy adults completed measures concerning demographics, psychological factors, baseline symptoms, and medication-related beliefs before reading one of two types of patient information leaflet (PIL) (standard or positively framed PIL) for a sham medication and asking them about their side-effect expectations. Associations between these measures and side-effect expectations whilst controlling for the PIL received were assessed using regression analyses.

RESULTS

82.8% of participants expected side-effects that were warned about in the PIL, and 29.1% expected side-effects that were not warned about. Participants who were younger, from White backgrounds, less optimistic, experienced increased anxiety and received the standard PIL were more likely to expect side-effects that were warned about. Those with higher beliefs about medicine overuse and lower trust in medicine development were more likely to expect side-effects that were not warned about. Higher somatization, baseline symptoms, modern health worries scores, and lower trust in pharmaceutical companies were associated with increased expectations for all side-effects. The results suggest we can not only rely on altering side-effect risk communication to reduce side-effect expectations and therefore nocebo effects. We must also consider patients' beliefs about trust in medicines. More work is needed to investigate this in a patientsample in which the medication is known to them.