Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2019
The Influence of Side Effect Information Framing on Nocebo Effects.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Faasse Kate, Huynh Anna, Pearson Sarah, Geers Andrew L, Helfer Suzanne G, Colagiuri Ben
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: One contributing factor to the development of nocebo effects is information provided about possible side effects. However, nondisclosure of information can be problematic.
PURPOSE: We assessed whether positively framed side effect information (highlighting likelihood of not experiencing side effects) can reduce nocebo effects compared to negatively framed information (highlighting likelihood of experiencing side effects).
METHODS: One hundred twelve participants took part in research ostensibly assessing the influence of benzodiazepines (actually sham capsules) on anxiety. Participants were randomized to receive a sham capsule with positively or negatively framed information about four side effects, or a no-treatment control condition. Side effect expectations were assessed after information provision. Framed side effects and other unmentioned symptoms were assessed during the session and 24-hr follow-up.
RESULTS: Nocebo effects occurred in symptoms presented as side effects (regardless of framing) during the study session and follow-up (ps < .003). At follow-up, there was also a nocebo effect in other unmentioned symptoms (p = .018). Positive framing reduced side effect symptoms compared with negative framing during the study session (p = .037), but this effect was no longer present at follow-up (p = .53). Side effect expectations did not differ between the framing conditions (p = .14).
CONCLUSIONS: Positive framing reduced side effects short-term, but not at follow-up. Expectations did not differ between negative and positive framing. Nocebo effects appeared to generalize to other unmentioned symptoms over a 24-hr period. Further research is needed to determine whether the initial impact of positive framing can be maintained over time.
PURPOSE: We assessed whether positively framed side effect information (highlighting likelihood of not experiencing side effects) can reduce nocebo effects compared to negatively framed information (highlighting likelihood of experiencing side effects).
METHODS: One hundred twelve participants took part in research ostensibly assessing the influence of benzodiazepines (actually sham capsules) on anxiety. Participants were randomized to receive a sham capsule with positively or negatively framed information about four side effects, or a no-treatment control condition. Side effect expectations were assessed after information provision. Framed side effects and other unmentioned symptoms were assessed during the session and 24-hr follow-up.
RESULTS: Nocebo effects occurred in symptoms presented as side effects (regardless of framing) during the study session and follow-up (ps < .003). At follow-up, there was also a nocebo effect in other unmentioned symptoms (p = .018). Positive framing reduced side effect symptoms compared with negative framing during the study session (p = .037), but this effect was no longer present at follow-up (p = .53). Side effect expectations did not differ between the framing conditions (p = .14).
CONCLUSIONS: Positive framing reduced side effects short-term, but not at follow-up. Expectations did not differ between negative and positive framing. Nocebo effects appeared to generalize to other unmentioned symptoms over a 24-hr period. Further research is needed to determine whether the initial impact of positive framing can be maintained over time.