Introduction: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments.... Show moreIntroduction: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments. Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. Show less
Nocebo hyperalgesia is a clinically relevant phenomenon and may be formed as a result of associative learning, implemented by classical conditioning. This study explored for the first time distinct... Show moreNocebo hyperalgesia is a clinically relevant phenomenon and may be formed as a result of associative learning, implemented by classical conditioning. This study explored for the first time distinct nocebo conditioning methods and their consequences for nocebo attenuation methods. Healthy participants (N = 140) were recruited and randomized to the following nocebo hyperalgesia induction groups: conditioning with continuous reinforcement (CRF), conditioning with partial reinforcement (PRF), and a sham-conditioning control group. In the attenuation phase, counterconditioning was compared with extinction. During induction, participants experienced increased thermal pain in 100% of nocebo trials in the CRF groups, while in only 70% of nocebo trials in the PRF groups. During evocation, pain stimulation was equivalent across all trials. During attenuation, pain stimulation was decreased on nocebo trials relative to control trials for the counterconditioning groups, while pain remained equivalent across all trials for the extinction groups. Results showed that both PRF and CRF significantly induced nocebo hyperalgesia, but CRF was a more potent nocebo induction method, as compared to PRF. Counterconditioning was more effective than extinction in attenuating nocebo hyperalgesia. Neither CRF nor PRF resulted in resistance to extinction. However, compared with CRF, conditioning with PRF resulted in more resistance to counterconditioning. These findings demonstrate that the more ambiguous learning method of PRF can induce nocebo hyperalgesia and may potentially explain the treatment resistance and chronification seen in clinical practice. Further research is required to establish whether attenuation with counterconditioning is generalizable to clinical settings. Show less
