| 1. |
- Bernstein, Michael
(author)
-
Conclusion
- 2024
-
In: The Nocebo Effect. - Rochester, MN : Mayo Clinic Press.
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 2. |
- Bernstein, Michael H, et al.
(author)
-
Primary care providers’ use of and attitudes towards placebos : An exploratory focus group study with US physicians
- 2020
-
In: British Journal of Health Psychology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1359-107X .- 2044-8287. ; 25:3, s. 596-614
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective To examine how primary care physicians define placebo concepts, use placebos in clinical practice, and view open-label placebos (OLPs).Design Semi-structured focus groups that were audio-recorded and content-coded.Methods Two focus groups with a total of 15 primary care physicians occurred at medical centres in the New England region of the United States. Prior experience using placebo treatments and attitudes towards open-label placebos were explored. Themes were analysed using an inductive data-driven approach.Results Physicians displayed a nuanced understanding of placebos and placebo effects in clinical contexts which sometimes focused on relational factors. Some respondents reported that they prescribed treatments with no known pharmacological effect for certain conditions and symptoms ('impure placebos') and that such prescriptions were more common for pain disorders, functional disorders, and medically unexplained symptoms. Opinions about OLP were mixed: Some viewed OLPs favourably or considered them 'harmless'; however, others strongly rejected OLPs as disrespectful to patients. Other issues in relation to OLPs included the following: lack of guidelines, legal and reputational concerns, and the notion that such treatments would run counter to customary medical practice.Conclusions A number of physicians reported prescribing impure placebos in clinical care. Although some primary care physicians were resistant to the possibility of recommending OLPs, others regarded OLPs more favourably, viewing them as potential treatments, albeit with restricted potential.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bernstein, Michael H, et al.
(author)
-
Putting the art into the art of medicine : The under-explored role of artifacts in placebo studies
- 2020
-
In: Frontiers in Psychology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1664-1078. ; 11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Research in social psychology demonstrates that physical environmental factors - or "artifacts" such as provider clothing and office decor - can influence health outcomes. However, the role of artifacts in augmenting or diminishing health outcomes is under-explored in the burgeoning discipline of placebo studies. In this paper, we argue that a careful consideration of artifacts may carry significant potential in informing how placebo effects can be maximized, and nocebo effects minimized in clinical settings. We discuss the potential mechanisms, including classical conditioning, response expectancy, and mindsets, by which artifacts might enhance or diminish these effects. Next, we propose testable hypotheses to investigate how placebo and nocebo effects might be elicited by artifacts in care settings, and conclude by providing innovative research designs to advance this novel research agendum.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Bernstein, Michael, et al.
(author)
-
Introduction
- 2024
-
In: The Nocebo Effect. - Rochester, MN : Mayo Clinic Press.
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 6. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(author)
-
Artificial intelligence and the future of psychiatry : qualitative findings from a global physician survey
- 2020
-
In: Digital Health. - : SAGE Publications. - 2055-2076. ; 6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore psychiatrists’ opinions about the potential impact innovations in artificial intelligence and machine learning on psychiatric practiceMethodsIn Spring 2019, we conducted a web-based survey of 791 psychiatrists from 22 countries worldwide. The survey measured opinions about the likelihood future technology would fully replace physicians in performing ten key psychiatric tasks. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses (“comments”) to three open-ended questions in the survey.ResultsComments were classified into four major categories in relation to the impact of future technology on: (1) patient-psychiatrist interactions; (2) the quality of patient medical care; (3) the profession of psychiatry; and (4) health systems. Overwhelmingly, psychiatrists were skeptical that technology could replace human empathy. Many predicted that ‘man and machine’ would increasingly collaborate in undertaking clinical decisions, with mixed opinions about the benefits and harms of such an arrangement. Participants were optimistic that technology might improve efficiencies and access to care, and reduce costs. Ethical and regulatory considerations received limited attention.ConclusionsThis study presents timely information on psychiatrists’ views about the scope of artificial intelligence and machine learning on psychiatric practice. Psychiatrists expressed divergent views about the value and impact of future technology with worrying omissions about practice guidelines, and ethical and regulatory issues.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(author)
-
Machine learning in clinical psychology and psychotherapy education : a mixed methods pilot survey of postgraduate students at a Swiss university
- 2021
-
In: Frontiers in Public Health. - : Frontiers. - 2296-2565. ; 9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: There is increasing use of psychotherapy apps in mental health care.Objective: This mixed methods pilot study aimed to explore postgraduate clinical psychology students' familiarity and formal exposure to topics related to artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) during their studies.Methods: In April-June 2020, we conducted a mixed-methods online survey using a convenience sample of 120 clinical psychology students enrolled in a two-year Masters' program at a Swiss University.Results: In total 37 students responded (response rate: 37/120, 31%). Among respondents, 73% (n = 27) intended to enter a mental health profession, and 97% reported that they had heard of the term “machine learning.” Students estimated 0.52% of their program would be spent on AI/ML education. Around half (46%) reported that they intended to learn about AI/ML as it pertained to mental health care. On 5-point Likert scale, students “moderately agreed” (median = 4) that AI/M should be part of clinical psychology/psychotherapy education. Qualitative analysis of students' comments resulted in four major themes on the impact of AI/ML on mental healthcare: (1) Changes in the quality and understanding of psychotherapy care; (2) Impact on patient-therapist interactions; (3) Impact on the psychotherapy profession; (4) Data management and ethical issues.Conclusions: This pilot study found that postgraduate clinical psychology students held a wide range of opinions but had limited formal education on how AI/ML-enabled tools might impact psychotherapy. The survey raises questions about how curricula could be enhanced to educate clinical psychology/psychotherapy trainees about the scope of AI/ML in mental healthcare.
|
|
| 9. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(author)
-
Open-label placebo clinical trials : is it the rationale, the interaction or the pill?
- 2020
-
In: BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2515-446X .- 2515-4478. ; 25:5, s. 159-165
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- National surveys of primary care physicians demonstrate that placebo use is prevalent. Against their widespread use, until recently, it was assumed among researchers that placebos must be deceptively prescribed for beneficial effects to be elicited. However, a new programme of research in placebo studies indicates that it may be possible to harness placebo effects in clinical practice via ethical, non-deceptively prescribed ‘open label placebos’ (‘OLPs’). To date, there have been 14 small scale clinical and experimental trials into OLPs. Results suggest therapeutic potential of these treatments for a range of conditions and symptoms. In this evidence-based Analysis we identify conceptual issues that, if not given due consideration, risk undermining research methodologies in OLP trials. Counterintuitively, owing to the nuances posed by placebo terminology, and the difficulties of designing placebos controls in OLP trials, we suggest that experimentalists reflect more deeply when formulating adequate comparison groups. Further research is needed to disentangle which specific components of OLPs are effective, such as: the rationale provided to participants; the quality of provider interaction; and/or the action of taking the pills. We conclude with recommendations for how researchers might take up the significant challenge of devising optimal placebo controls for OLP clinical trials. Although these issues are intricate, they are not merely academic: without due diligence to conceptual, and as a consequence, methodological considerations, OLP effect sizes may be over- or underestimated. We conclude that there may yet be potential to use OLPs in medical practice but clinical translation depends on rigorously controlled research.
|
|
| 10. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(author)
-
Replication crisis and placebo studies: rebooting the bioethical debate
- 2023
-
In: Journal of Medical Ethics. - : BMJ. - 0306-6800 .- 1473-4257. ; , s. jme-2022
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 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.
|
|
