IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0058247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Placebo Use in the United Kingdom: Results from a National Survey of Primary Care Practitioners

Author

Listed:
  • Jeremy Howick
  • Felicity L Bishop
  • Carl Heneghan
  • Jane Wolstenholme
  • Sarah Stevens
  • F D Richard Hobbs
  • George Lewith

Abstract

Objectives: Surveys in various countries suggest 17% to 80% of doctors prescribe ‘placebos’ in routine practice, but prevalence of placebo use in UK primary care is unknown. Methods: We administered a web-based questionnaire to a representative sample of UK general practitioners. Following surveys conducted in other countries we divided placebos into ‘pure’ and ‘impure’. ‘Impure’ placebos are interventions with clear efficacy for certain conditions but are prescribed for ailments where their efficacy is unknown, such as antibiotics for suspected viral infections. ‘Pure’ placebos are interventions such as sugar pills or saline injections without direct pharmacologically active ingredients for the condition being treated. We initiated the survey in April 2012. Two reminders were sent and electronic data collection closed after 4 weeks. Results: We surveyed 1715 general practitioners and 783 (46%) completed our questionnaire. Our respondents were similar to those of all registered UK doctors suggesting our results are generalizable. 12% (95% CI 10 to 15) of respondents used pure placebos while 97% (95% CI 96 to 98) used impure placebos at least once in their career. 1% of respondents used pure placebos, and 77% (95% CI 74 to 79) used impure placebos at least once per week. Most (66% for pure, 84% for impure) respondents stated placebos were ethical in some circumstances. Conclusion and implications: Placebo use is common in primary care but questions remain about their benefits, harms, costs, and whether they can be delivered ethically. Further research is required to investigate ethically acceptable and cost-effective placebo interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeremy Howick & Felicity L Bishop & Carl Heneghan & Jane Wolstenholme & Sarah Stevens & F D Richard Hobbs & George Lewith, 2013. "Placebo Use in the United Kingdom: Results from a National Survey of Primary Care Practitioners," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-6, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0058247
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058247
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058247&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0058247?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Klaus Linde & Oxana Atmann & Karin Meissner & Antonius Schneider & Ramona Meister & Levente Kriston & Christoph Werner, 2018. "How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.
    2. Alvisa Palese & Lucia Cadorin & Marco Testa & Tommaso Geri & Luana Colloca & Giacomo Rossettini, 2019. "Contextual factors triggering placebo and nocebo effects in nursing practice: Findings from a national cross‐sectional study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1966-1978, May.
    3. Jeremy Howick & Claire Friedemann & Maria Tsakok & Robert Watson & Teresa Tsakok & Jennifer Thomas & Rafael Perera & Susannah Fleming & Carl Heneghan, 2013. "Are Treatments More Effective than Placebos? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-8, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0058247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.