| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Evers, AWM, et al.
(författare)
-
What Should Clinicians Tell Patients about Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Practical Considerations Based on Expert Consensus
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Psychotherapy and psychosomatics. - : S. Karger AG. - 1423-0348 .- 0033-3190. ; 90:1, s. 49-56
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- <b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients’ needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kossowsky, J., et al.
(författare)
-
The separation anxiety hypothesis of panic disorder revisited : A meta-analysis
- 2013
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Psychiatry. - : American Psychiatric Association. - 0002-953X .- 1535-7228. ; 170:7, s. 768-781
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: Evidence suggests that childhood separation anxiety disorder may be associated with a heightened risk for the development of other disorders in adulthood. The authors conducted a metaanalysis to examine the relationship between childhood separation anxiety disorder and future psychopathology. Method: PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched for studies published through December 2011. Case-control, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies comparing children with and without separation anxiety disorder with regard to future panic disorder, major depressive disorder, any anxiety disorder, and substance use disorders were included in the analysis. Effects were summarized as pooled odds ratios in a random-effects model. Results: Twenty-five studies met all inclusion criteria (14,855 participants). A metaanalysis of 20 studies indicated that children with separation anxiety disorder weremore likely to develop panic disorder later on (odds ratio=3.45; 95% CI=2.37-5.03). Five studies suggested that a childhood diagnosis of separation anxiety disorder increases the risk of future anxiety (odds ratio=2.19; 95% CI=1.40-3.42). After adjusting for publication bias, the results of 14 studies indicated that childhood separation anxiety disorder does not increase the risk of future depression (odds ratio=1.06; 95% CI=0.78- 1.45). Five studies indicated that childhood separation anxiety disorder does not increase the risk of substance use disorders (odds ratio=1.27; 95% CI=0.80-2.03). Of the subgroup analyses performed, differences in comparison groups and sample type significantly affected odds ratio sizes. Conclusions: A childhood diagnosis of separation anxiety disorder significantly increases the risk of panic disorder and any anxiety disorder. These results support a developmental psychopathology conceptualization of anxiety disorders.
|
|
| 4. |
- Evers, AWM, et al.
(författare)
-
Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Psychotherapy and psychosomatics. - : S. Karger AG. - 1423-0348 .- 0033-3190. ; 87:4, s. 204-210
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- <b><i>Background:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Results:</i></b> 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. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Computerization and the future of primary care : a survey of general practitioners in the UK
- 2018
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 13:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveTo describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of future technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care.DesignCross sectional online survey.Participants1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom.Main outcome measuresInvestigators measured GPs’ opinions about the likelihood that future technology will be able to fully replace–not merely aid–the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge.ResultsA total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that future technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time.ConclusionsThe majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for future technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near future technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs’ in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
