Search

Background In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as “open notes”). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes. Objective This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients’ access to psychotherapists’ free-text summaries. Methods We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions. Results Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches. Conclusions Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the vi

The efficacy of open-label placebos (OLPs) has been increasingly demonstrated and their use holds promise for applications compatible with basic ethical principles. Taking this concept one step further an imaginary pill (IP) intervention without the use of a physical pill was developed and tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). To explore participants’ experiences and views, we conducted the first qualitative study in the field of IPs

Background: The evaluation of psychotherapy is guided by established concepts, such as efficacy and effectiveness, and acceptability. Although these concepts serve as valid proxies, little is known about corresponding criteria for those directly involved in this treatment. This study aimed to explore inpatients’ and health professionals’ definitions of a good treatment in the inpatient setting. Methods: Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in a private psychiatric clinic in Switzerland and structured by qualitative content analysis. Different subsamples of the inpatient setting (patients N = 5; psychiatrists N = 5; other health professionals N = 5) were interviewed. Results: In total, 546 text passages were grouped in 10 superordinate categories and identified as relevant for the concept of a good treatment. Participants stressed patient-specific (i.e., new insights; basic attitudes), treatment-specific (i.e., therapy methods and expertise; treatment success; therapy setting), and relationship-based (i.e., communication and feedback; relationships within the clinical setting; overcoming challenges and hurdles) components that are indispensable for a good therapeutic process. Components that are related to the clinical inpatient setting (i.e., setting and organization of the clinic; code of conduct) were also highlighted. Conclusions: Patients’ and health professionals’ definitions of what constitutes a good treatment entails a wide array of aspects. The clinical setting is seen to offer unique components that are emphasized to have a healing effect.

Background The evaluation of psychotherapy is guided by established concepts, such as efficacy and effectiveness, and acceptability. Although these concepts serve as valid proxies, little is known about corresponding criteria for those directly involved in this treatment. This study aimed to explore inpatients’ and health professionals’ definitions of a good treatment in the inpatient setting. Methods Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in a private psychiatric clinic in Switzerland and structured by qualitative content analysis. Different subsamples of the inpatient setting (patients N = 5; psychiatrists N = 5; other health professionals N = 5) were interviewed. Results In total, 546 text passages were grouped in 10 superordinate categories and identified as relevant for the concept of a good treatment. Participants stressed patient-specific (i.e., new insights; basic attitudes), treatment-specific (i.e., therapy methods and expertise; treatment success; therapy setting), and relationship-based (i.e., communication and feedback; relationships within the clinical setting; overcoming challenges and hurdles) components that are indispensable for a good therapeutic process. Components that are related to the clinical inpatient setting (i.e., setting and organization of the clinic; code of conduct) were also highlighted. Conclusions Patients’ and health professionals’ definitions of what constitutes a good treatment entails a wide array of aspects. The clinical setting is seen to offer unique components that are emphasized to have a healing effect.

ObjectivesTo analyse participants’ concepts about the open-label placebo (OLP) effect; to explore their views about the discussion points that are applied in conventional OLP trials and to examine their experiences of taking part in an OLP trial.DesignA qualitative study using thematic analysis of semistructured interviews that were nested within a randomised controlled trial investigating experimental OLP analgesia (registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02578420).Participants30 healthy adults who took part in the randomised controlled trial.ResultsParticipants mostly conceptualised placebo as something that is inert and requires deception in order to be effective. Interviewees used a broad definition of placebos, going beyond a conventional notion of sugar pills. In contrast to the conventional OLP rationale, participants seldom emphasised classical conditioning as a mechanism of placebo effects, stressing a variety of other well-established components through which placebos might be therapeutic, whereas the conventional OLP disclosures state that ‘a positive attitude helps but is not necessary’, participants in our study applied other attitudes, such as ‘it’s worth a try’. When asked about their experiences during the trial, the majority emphasised that the concept of OLP was completely novel to them. Participants were rather sceptical about the efficacy of the intervention.ConclusionIntegrating lay perspectives into the scientific rationale of OLP treatments might enhance the plausibility and credibility of the rationale in ethical treatments.Trial registration numberNCT02578420.

Introduction: Open-label placebos have been proposed as way of using long recognized analgesic placebo effects in an ethical manner. Recent evidence shows efficacy of open-label placebos for clinical conditions, but there is need for more research on open-label placebos in acute pain. In the treatment of acute postoperative pain, minimization of opioid related side effects remains one of the key challenges. Therefore, this study aims at investigating the potential of adding unconditioned open-label placebos to treatment as usual as a means of reducing opioid consumption and its related side effects in patients with acute postoperative pain.Methods and Analysis: This is the protocol of an ongoing single site randomized controlled trial. The first patient was enrolled in May 2020. In total, 70 patients suffering from acute postoperative pain following dorsal lumbar interbody fusion are randomized to either a treatment as usual group or an experimental intervention group. The treatment as usual group consists of participants receiving a patient-controlled morphine pump. On day 1 and 2 post-surgery, patients in the intervention group receive, in addition to treatment as usual, two open-label placebo injections per day along with an evidence-based treatment rationale explaining the mechanisms of placebos. The primary outcome is measured by means of self-administered morphine during day 1 and 2 post-surgery. Several other outcome measures including pain intensity and adverse events as well as potential predictors of placebo response are assessed. Analysis of covariance will be used to answer the primary research question and additional statistical techniques such as generalized linear mixed models will be applied to model the temporal course of morphine consumption.Discussion: This study will provide valuable insights into the efficacy of open-label placebos in acute pain and will potentially constitute an important step toward the implementation of open-label placebos in

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.

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.

Introduction: Over the last years, the interest in understanding health improvements that occur due to non-specific treatment effects, rather than in response to the specific active treatment ingredients, increased. Nevertheless, investigations on patients' idiosyncratic perspectives on the non-specific aspects of the healing encounter or of the treatment itself that contribute to placebo effects are still rare. The Healing Encounters and Attitudes Lists (HEAL) offer a unique and parsimonious set of instruments to measure patients' views on a variety of non-specific aspects of the caring encounter. The HEAL items can be administered as computerized adaptive tests or short forms that assess the patient-provider connection, the healthcare environment, treatment expectancy, positive outlook, spirituality, as well as attitudes towards complementary and alternative medicine. So far, no German version of the HEAL exists. Methods: The original 168 HEAL items were translated into German (HEAL-D) applying a translation-back-translation procedure. We examined the psychometric properties of HEAL-D in a sample of 165 participants who reported at least one healthcare visit during the last year. Results: The German short forms of HEAL (HEAL-D-SF) showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The factor structure observed in the English original items showed low to moderate model fit in our sample. Discussion: The development of a German version of HEAL in addition to the original English items offers new possibilities for investigating patients' idiosyncratic perspectives on the non-specific aspects of treatments across language borders. We will close with presenting possible clinical application as well as promising and relevant future research directions using HEAL-D-SF, including for instance large-scale, cross-national investigations.