↓ Skip to main content

Scientific tools, fake treatments, or triggers for psychological healing: How clinical trial participants conceptualise placebos

Overview of attention for article published in Social Science & 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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Scientific tools, fake treatments, or triggers for psychological healing: How clinical trial participants conceptualise placebos
Published in
Social Science & Medicine, January 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.020
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felicity L. Bishop, Eric E. Jacobson, Jessica R. Shaw, Ted J. Kaptchuk

Abstract

Placebos are an essential tool in randomised clinical trials, where they are used to control for bias and contextual healing effects. Placebos and their effects are also studied from multiple diverse perspectives, but the perspectives of placebo recipients are seldom considered. Research shows that people form cognitive and affective representations of active treatments such as medicines, and that they use these representations to guide their behaviour; it seems reasonable to suggest that people might also think about and develop representations of placebos. We adopted a qualitative approach to examine in detail how participants in one RCT, conducted in the USA, conceptualised placebos. 12 people were interviewed 3 times each, at the start, middle, and end of a trial of placebo effects and acupuncture for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). The interview data were analysed inductively and we identified four ways in which the participants conceptualised placebos: placebos are necessary for research; placebo effects are fake; placebo acupuncture is not real acupuncture; placebos have real effects mediated by psychological mechanisms. Participants' conceptualisations of placebos were dynamic and situated in a broader psychological and socio-cultural context. Seeing placebo effects as legitimate seemed to be facilitated by having more holistic models of healing, viewing IBS as psychological, and seeing treatment as multifactorial. However, some participants maintained a negative view of placebo effects (e.g. as illusions) that was apparently inconsistent with their other beliefs (e.g. in mind-body healing mechanisms). This may indicate a dominance of negative discourses around placebos at a socio-cultural level. Negative views of placebos are inconsistent with evidence that placebo treatments can have positive effects on symptoms. RCT participants should be informed about potential benefits of placebo treatments to avoid misunderstandings and unease. Future work should improve methods of providing participants with full accurate information about placebos and their effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 24%
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 20 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 30%
Psychology 34 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Philosophy 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 22 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 February 2012.
All research outputs
#4,118,788
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#4,238
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,727
of 251,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#29
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 251,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.