Dataset Information

When and why placebo-prescribing is acceptable and unacceptable: a focus group study of patients' views.

ABSTRACT: Surveys of doctors suggest that they use placebos and placebo effects clinically to help patients. However, patients' views are not well-understood. We aimed to identify when and why placebo-prescribing in primary care might be acceptable and unacceptable to patients.A purposive diverse sample of 58 English-speaking adults (18 men; aged 19-80 years) participated in 11 focus groups. Vignettes describing doctors prescribing placebos in primary care were used to initiate discussions. Data were analyzed inductively.Participants discussed diverse harms and benefits of placebo-prescribing for individual patients, carers, healthcare providers, and society. Two perspectives on placebo-prescribing were identified. First, the "consequentialist" perspective focused on the potential for beneficial outcomes of placebo-prescribing. Here, some participants thought placebos are beneficial and should be used clinically; they often invoked the power of the mind or mind-body interactions. Others saw placebos as ineffective and therefore a waste of time and money. Second, the "respecting autonomy" perspective emphasized the harms caused by the deceptive processes thought necessary for placebo-prescribing. Here, participants judged placebo-prescribing unacceptable because placebo-prescribers deceive patients, thus a doctor who prescribes placebos cannot be trusted and patients' autonomy is compromised. They also saw placebo-responders as gullible, which deterred them from trying placebos themselves. Overall, the word "placebo" was often thought to imply "ineffective"; some participants suggested alternative carefully chosen language that could enable doctors to prescribe placebos without directly lying to patients.Negative views of placebos derive from beliefs that placebos do not work and/or that they require deception by the doctor. Positive views are pragmatic in that if placebos work then any associated processes (e.g. mechanisms, deception) are deemed unimportant. Public education about placebos and their effects is warranted and research to identify optimal ways of harnessing placebo effects in clinical practice is needed.

SUBMITTER: Bishop FL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4089920 | biostudies-other | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are increasingly being conducted to efficiently generate evidence to inform healthcare decision-making. Despite their growing acceptance, PCTs may involve a variety of ethical issues, including the management of pragmatic clinical trial-collateral findings (PCT-CFs), that is, information that emerges in PCTs that is unrelated to the primary research questions but may have implications for patients, clinicians, and health systems.ObjectiveWe sought to understand patients' views about PCT-CF disclosure, including how, by whom, and the nature and extent of information provided.DesignProspective, qualitative focus group study.ParticipantsFocus groups were conducted in Baltimore, MD; Houston, TX; and Seattle, WA (overall N = 66), during July and August 2019.ApproachAll groups discussed a hypothetical scenario involving the detection of a PCT-CF of contraindicated medications. Participants were asked about their reactions to the PCT-CF and issues related to its disclosure.Key resultsReactions to learning about the PCT-CF were mixed, ranging from fear of a significant health problem, anger that the contraindicated medications had gone unnoticed and/or for being included in research without their permission, to gratitude for the information. Preferences for how such disclosures are made varied but were driven by several consistent desires, namely minimizing patient harm and anxiety and demonstrating trust and respect. Many wanted their treating clinician to be informed of the PCT-CF so that they would be prepared to answer patients' questions and to discuss treatment options.ConclusionsThe detection of PCT-CFs is likely to increase with further expansion of PCTs. As such, clinicians will undoubtedly become involved in the management of PCT-CFs. Our data illustrate some of the challenges clinicians may face when their patients are informed of a PCT-CF and the need to develop guidance for disclosing PCT-CFs in ways that align with patients' preferences and values.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary healthcare sector comprises various health services, including disease prevention at local level. Research shows that targeted primary healthcare services can prevent the development of acute complications and ultimately reduce the risk of hospitalisations. While interdisciplinary collaboration has been suggested as a means to improve the quality and responsiveness of personal care needs in preventive services, effective implementation remains a challenge. To improve the quality and responsiveness of primary healthcare and to develop initiatives to support the interdisciplinary collaboration in preventive services, there is a need to investigate the views of primary healthcare providers. The aim of this study was to investigate perceptions of preventive care among primary healthcare providers by examining their views on what constitutes a need for hospitalisation, and which strategies are found useful to prevent hospitalisation. Further, to explain how interdisciplinary collaboration can be supported with a view to providing person-centred care.MethodsFive focus group interviews were conducted with 27 healthcare providers, including general practitioners, social and healthcare assistants, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, home care nurses, specialist nurses and acute care nurses. Interviews were transcribed, and analysed with qualitative content analysis.ResultsThree categories emerged from the analysis: 1) Mental and social conditions influence physical functioning and hospitalisation need, 2) Well-established primary healthcare services are important to provide person-centred care through interdisciplinary collaboration and 3) Interdisciplinary collaboration in primary healthcare services is predominantly focussed on handling acute physical conditions. These describe that the healthcare providers are attentive towards the influence of mental, social and physical conditions on the risk of hospitalisation, entailing a focus on person-centred care. Nevertheless, in the preventive services, interdisciplinary collaboration focusses primarily on handling acute physical conditions, which constitutes a barrier for interdisciplinary collaboration.ConclusionsBy focusing on the whole person, it could be possible to provide more person-centred care through interdisciplinary collaboration and ultimately to prevent some hospitalisations. Stakeholders at all levels should be informed about the relevance of considering mental, social and physical conditions to improve the quality and responsiveness of primary healthcare services and to develop initiatives to support interdisciplinary collaboration.

Project description:BackgroundIn Sweden, vaccine uptake is exceptionally high due to an efficient child immunization program. More than 97% of Swedish children were vaccinated at child health care centers (CHCs) according to the schedule at 2 years of age in 2021. From the age of 6 years, vaccinations are given within the school health care. Maintaining high vaccination coverage over time is one of the central motives to explore and understand drivers for vaccine acceptance. The current study aimed to assess parental vaccine acceptance concerning the national immunization program and explore factors contributing to the high vaccine acceptance in Sweden.MethodsParents of children aged 1-2 years and 8-12 years were recruited through purposive sampling and asked to participate in focus groups held in three cities in Sweden, in February and March 2019. In total, 47 parents participated in two focus groups per city, one session for parents of younger (1-2 years) and older (8-12 years) children respectively. The focus group discussions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsParents of children aged 1-2 years expressed the themes; strong compliance to and protection of the value of vaccinations; parents feel safe with an attentive relationship with their nurse; the spectrum of communication needs is essential to meet. For parents to children aged 8-12 years, the themes expressed were; vaccinate to do good for the individual and society; a foundation of trust is built at CHCs for decisions later on; decisions for vaccination become more complex as children get older; communication changes as children get older and need to be explicit and tailored to the situation.ConclusionBoth individual and societal perspectives were shown to influence the vaccination decision for childhood immunizations, as manifested in parental reflections and experiences. As nurses have a key role, it is important to provide them with continued support and tools to facilitate their support for parents in making informed decisions. Continuous work for supporting driving factors for vaccination over time is needed to maintain high vaccine acceptance in Sweden.