‘It's not my greengrocer, it's someone from the medical profession’: A qualitative study regarding acceptability of deceptive and open‐label placebo prescribing in France

If only they knew! A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing deceptive and open-label placebo in healthy individuals

BACKGROUND

Placebo use is widespread in clinical practice. However, they are most often administered deceptively rather than openly. It is often suggested that open-label placebos (OLP) are less effective than deceptive placebos (DP). This study aimed to compare the use of DP and OLP treatments to reduce pain in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

We conducted a non-inferiority, parallel, randomized, controlled trial, which also included a nested cross-over no-treatment condition. This study was conducted at a university clinic in France.

RESULTS

We included 60 subjects and the main result shows that the OLP was not inferior to the DP by a margin of 10 mm. The mean difference between both groups regarding intensity of pain was 0.7 mm with a 95% compatibility interval (95% CI) of ]-∞; 5.4], and 97.5% CI of ]-∞; 6.3]. Secondary outcomes require cautious interpretation of the effect of placebo versus no treatment due to a time-treatment interaction.

CONCLUSION

The study indicates that OLP may perform just as well as DP and could provide support for the use of OLP as an ethical alternative to DP when they are to be used in a clinical setting. If only patients knew about the placebo nature of some treatments they are receiving, unnecessary lies could be avoided while maintaining similar placebo effects.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study is the first to show non-inferiority of placebos administered honestly, also called OLP, compared to DP in reducing pain. This suggests that OLP could be as effective as their deceptive counterparts while having the ethical advantage of not being required to lie. If deception is not a necessary condition for efficacy, OLP should be preferred over DP.

Would You Take an Open-Label Placebo Pill or Give One to Your Child? Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey

Background

Open-label placebos (OLPs), honestly prescribed regarding their inert nature, have been associated with positive health-related effects in both children and adults. However, OLPs are not always perceived by laypeople as a viable treatment option.

Methods

A brief online survey with 806 adult participants (age range: 18-75 years; 29% parents) was conducted to identify predictor variables that are associated with the willingness to take an OLP pill (criterion 1) or to give an OLP to one's child (criterion 2). The survey covered aspects including the perceived plausibility of the treatment concept for both OLPs and deceptive placebos (DPs), self-reported knowledge about placebos, the expected effectiveness of OLPs in treating emotional/ somatic problems, and attitudes concerning taking pills in general. Multiple hierarchical regressions were carried out.

Results

The expected effectiveness of OLPs in alleviating both emotional and physical ailments and the plausibility of the treatment concepts for both OLPs and DPs significantly predicted the willingness to use OLPs (R2 = 0.485). A similar finding was observed when predicting the willingness to administer an OLP to one's child (R2 = 0.443).

Conclusion

Favorable expectations regarding the reduction of emotional and somatic symptoms with OLPs, along with a strong belief in the credibility of placebo mechanisms, play a vital role in influencing the willingness to accept this kind of treatment. These factors can be incorporated into psychoeducational programs.

Replication crisis and placebo studies: rebooting the bioethical debate

A growing body of cross-cultural survey research shows high percentages of clinicians report using placebos in clinical settings. One motivation for clinicians using placebos is to help patients by capitalising on the placebo effect's reported health benefits. This is not surprising, given that placebo studies are burgeoning, with increasing calls by researchers to ethically harness placebo effects among patients. These calls propose placebos/placebo effects offer clinically significant benefits to patients. In this paper, we argue many findings in this highly cited and 'hot' field have not been independently replicated. Evaluating the ethicality of placebo use in clinical practice involves first understanding whether placebos are efficacious clinically. Therefore, it is crucial to consider placebo research in the context of the replication crisis and what can be learnt to advance evidence-based knowledge of placebos/placebo effects and their clinical relevance (or lack thereof). In doing so, our goal in this paper is to motivate both increased awareness of replication issues and to help pave the way for advances in scientific research in the field of placebo studies to better inform ethical evidence-based practice. We argue that, only by developing a rigorous evidence base can we better understand how, if at all, placebos/placebo effects can be harnessed ethically in clinical settings.

Evidencing general acceptability of open-label placebo use for tackling overtreatment in primary care: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Overtreatment poses a challenge to healthcare systems due to harmful consequences of avoidable side-effects and costs. This study presents the first account for examining the feasibility of placebo use for reducing overtreatment in primary care, including whether public attitudes support the use of different placebo types in place of inappropriate prescriptions of antibiotics, antidepressants, or analgesics.

METHODS

We used a multi-study, mixed-methods design, including patient and public (PPI) consultations, focus groups (Study 1) and two pre-registered online experiments (Studies 2 and 3).

RESULTS

Study 1 (N = 16) explored everyday conceptions and practicalities of potential placebo use in the context of respiratory infections. Findings highlighted the importance of trusting doctor-patient relationships and safety-netting. Study 2 employed a randomised experiment with a representative UK sample (N = 980), investigating attitudes towards 5 different treatment options for respiratory infections: (1) blinded + pure placebo, (2) open-label + pure placebo, (3) open-label + impure placebo, (4) antibiotic treatment, and (5) no treatment. Study 2 also examined how attitudes varied based on wording and individual differences. Findings indicated general support (ηp2 = .149, large effect size) for replacing inappropriate antibiotics with open-label + impure placebos, although personal placebo acceptability was lower. Also, older people, individuals suffering from chronic illness or those showing higher levels of health anxiety appeared less amenable to placebo use. Study 3 (N = 1177) compared attitudes towards treatment options across three clinical scenarios: respiratory infection, depression and pain. Findings suggested significant differences in the acceptability of placebo options based on the clinical context. In the infection scenario, options for open-label + pure placebos, open-label + impure placebos and no treatment were rated significantly more acceptable (ηp2 = .116, medium effect size) compared to the depression and pain scenarios. Again, general support for placebos was higher than placebo acceptability for personal use.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from PPI and three studies indicate general support for combatting overprescribing in primary care through clinical placebo use. This is an indicator for wider UK public support for a novel, behavioural strategy to target a long-standing healthcare challenge. General acceptability appears to be highest for the use of open-label + impure placebos in the context of antibiotic overprescribing.