↓ Skip to main content

The Placebo Phenomenon: Implications for the Ethics of Shared Decision-Making

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
Title
The Placebo Phenomenon: Implications for the Ethics of Shared Decision-Making
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11606-011-1977-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Howard Brody, Luana Colloca, Franklin G. Miller

Abstract

Recent research into the placebo effect has implications for the ethics of shared decision-making (SDM). The older biomedical model views SDM as affecting which therapy is chosen, but not the nature or likelihood of any health outcomes produced by the therapy. Research indicates, however, that both the content and manner in which information is shared with the patient, and the patient's experience of being involved in the decision, can directly alter therapeutic outcomes via placebo responses. An ethical tension is thereby created between SDM aimed strictly and solely at conveying accurate information, and "outcome engineering" in which SDM is adapted toward therapeutic goals. Several practical strategies mitigate this tension and promote respect for autonomous decision-making while still utilizing the therapeutic potential of SDM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 126 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 23 17%
Researcher 22 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 35 26%
Unknown 15 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Psychology 16 12%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 18 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,290,290
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#1,743
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,892
of 251,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#10
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,672 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.