0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using contextual factors to elicit placebo and nocebo effects: An online survey of healthcare providers’ practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Contextual factor use by healthcare professionals has been studied mainly among nurses and physiotherapists. Preliminary results show that healthcare professionals use contextual factors without specifically labelling them as such. The main objective of this study was to evaluate knowledge and explore voluntary contextual factor use among various healthcare professions. The results aim to facilitate hypothesis-generation, to better position further research to explain and characterise contextual factor use. We conducted a web-based questionnaire cross-sectional observational study on a non-probabilistic convenience sample. Face and content validity were tested through cognitive interviews. Data were analysed descriptively. The target population was the main healthcare profession, or final year students, defined by the French public health law. The countries of distribution of the questionnaire were the French-speaking European countries. Among our 1236 participants, use of contextual factors was widespread. Those relating to the therapeutic relationship (e.g., communication) and patient characteristics (e.g., past experiences) were reportedly the most used. Meanwhile, contextual factors related to the healthcare providers’ characteristics and their own beliefs were reported as less used. Despite high variability, respondents suggested contextual effects contribute to approximately half of the overall effect in healthcare and were perceived as more effective on children and elderly adults. Conceptual variations that exist in the literature are also present in the way healthcare providers consider contextual effects. Interestingly, there seems to be common ground between how physiotherapists, nurses and physicians use different contextual factors. Finally, in the present study we also observed that while there are similarities across usage, there is lack of both an epistemological and ethical consensus among healthcare providers with respect to contextual factors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors.

          Statistical power analysis provides the conventional approach to assess error rates when designing a research study. However, power analysis is flawed in that a narrow emphasis on statistical significance is placed as the primary focus of study design. In noisy, small-sample settings, statistically significant results can often be misleading. To help researchers address this problem in the context of their own studies, we recommend design calculations in which (a) the probability of an estimate being in the wrong direction (Type S [sign] error) and (b) the factor by which the magnitude of an effect might be overestimated (Type M [magnitude] error or exaggeration ratio) are estimated. We illustrate with examples from recent published research and discuss the largest challenge in a design calculation: coming up with reasonable estimates of plausible effect sizes based on external information.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus

            Background Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice. Methods A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated. Results There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects. Conclusions The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires.

              The purpose of this paper is to discuss problems that occur in questionnaire responses and how cognitive interviewing can be used to identify problematic questions prior to using the questionnaire in the field. Questionnaire design involves developing wording that is clear, unambiguous and permits respondents successfully to answer the question that is asked. However, a number of problems in relation to respondents' understanding and successfully completing questionnaires have been identified. Cognitive interviewing, an amalgamation of cognitive psychology and survey methodology, has been developed to identify problematic questions that may elicit response error. The overall aim is to use cognitive theory to understand how respondents perceive and interpret questions and to identify potential problems that may arise in prospective survey questionnaires. A literature review is used to examine the process of questionnaire design and how cognitive interviewing can be used to reduce sampling error and increase questionnaire response rates. Cognitive interviewing involves interviewers asking survey respondents to think out loud as they go through a survey questionnaire and tell them everything they are thinking. This allows understanding of the questionnaire from the respondents' perspective rather than that of the researchers. Cognitive interviews have been used in a number of areas in health care research to pretest and validate questionnaires and to ensure high response rates. Interviewing has been found to be highly effective in developing questionnaires for age specific groups (children and adolescents) and in ascertaining respondents' understanding in health surveys prior to distribution. However, cognitive interviews have been criticized for being overly subjective and artificial. Cognitive interviews are a positive addition to current methods of pretesting questionnaires prior to distribution to the sample. They are most valuable in pretesting questions that are complex, where questions are sensitive and intrusive and for specific groups for whom questionnaire completion may pose particular difficulties.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                1 September 2023
                2023
                : 18
                : 9
                : e0291079
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, VetAgro Sup, Grenoble INP, Grenoble, France
                [2 ] Department of Physiotherapy University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France
                [3 ] Department of Rehabilitation, Franche-Comté University, Montbéliard, France
                [4 ] School of Physiotherapy, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
                [5 ] Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center,Digital Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States of America
                [6 ] Department of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Switzerland
                [7 ] Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, United Kingdom
                [8 ] Laboratoire de neurosciences intégratives, Besançon, France
                University of Verona, ITALY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5060-6620
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1623-7681
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5034-0802
                Article
                PONE-D-23-01153
                10.1371/journal.pone.0291079
                10473518
                37656736
                2d95a797-960b-45fe-b621-476dac7f2c12
                © 2023 Druart et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 13 January 2023
                : 22 August 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 1, Pages: 18
                Funding
                The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Allied Health Care Professionals
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Nurses
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Nurses
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Physicians
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Physicians
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Otorhinolaryngology
                Laryngology
                Speech-Language Pathology
                Speech Therapy
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Questionnaires
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article