This study investigated for the first time the effects of individual and combined application of 3 learning techniques (verbal suggestions, classical conditioning, and observational learning) on... Show moreThis study investigated for the first time the effects of individual and combined application of 3 learning techniques (verbal suggestions, classical conditioning, and observational learning) on placebo analgesia and extinction.Healthy participants (N = 206) were assigned to 8 different groups in which they were taught through either a verbal suggestion, a conditioning paradigm, a video observing someone, or any combination thereof that a placebo device (inactive transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation [TENS]) was capable of alleviating heat pain, whereas one group did not (control). Placebo analgesia was quantified as the within-group difference in experienced pain when the placebo device was (sham) 'activated' or 'inactivated' during equal pain stimuli, and compared between groups.Placebo analgesia was induced in groups with 2 or 3 learning techniques. Significantly stronger placebo analgesia was induced in the combination of all 3 learning techniques as compared to the individual learning techniques or control condition, underlining the additional contribution of 3 combined techniques. Extinction did not differ between groups. Furthermore, pain expectancies, but not state anxiety or trust, mediated placebo analgesia.Our findings emphasize the added value of combining 3 learning techniques to optimally shape expectancies that lead to placebo analgesia, which can be used in experimental and clinical settings. Perspective: This unique experimental study compared the individual versus combined effects of 3 important ways of learning (verbal suggestions, classical conditioning, and observational learning) on expectation-based pain relief. The findings indicate that placebo effects occurring in clinical practice could be optimally strengthened if healthcare providers apply these techniques in combination.(R) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Blankenstein, F.M. van; O'Sullivan, J.F.; Saab, N.; Steendijk, P. 2021
Background Teaching is an important professional skill for physicians and providing feedback is an important part of teaching. Medical students can practice their feedback skills by giving each... Show moreBackground Teaching is an important professional skill for physicians and providing feedback is an important part of teaching. Medical students can practice their feedback skills by giving each other peer feedback. Therefore, we developed a peer feedback training in which students observed a peer that modelled the use of good feedback principles. Students then elaborated on the modelled feedback principles through peer discussion. This combination of peer modelling and discussing the modelled feedback principles was expected to enhance emulation of the feedback principles compared to (1) only peer modelling and (2) discussing the feedback principles without previous modelling. Methods In a quasi-experimental study design, 141 medical students were assigned randomly to three training conditions: peer modelling plus discussion (MD), non-peer modelled example (NM) or peer modelling without discussion (M). Before and after the training, they commented on papers written by peers. These comments served as a pre- and a post-measure of peer feedback. The comments were coded into different functions and aspects of the peer feedback. Non-parametrical Kruskall-Wallis tests were used to check for pre- and post-measure between-group differences in the functions and aspects. Results Before the training, there were no significant between-group differences in feedback functions and aspects. After the training, the MD-condition gave significantly more positive peer feedback than the NM-condition. However, no other functions or aspects were significantly different between the three conditions, mainly because the within-group interquartile ranges were large. Conclusions The large interquartile ranges suggest that students differed substantially in the effort placed into giving peer feedback. Therefore, additional incentives may be needed to motivate students to give good feedback. Teachers could emphasise the utility value of peer feedback as an important professional skill and the importance of academic altruism and professional accountability in the peer feedback process. Such incentives may convince more students to put more effort into giving peer feedback. Show less
