IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v28y2019i9-10p1966-1978.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contextual factors triggering placebo and nocebo effects in nursing practice: Findings from a national cross‐sectional study

Author

Listed:
  • Alvisa Palese
  • Lucia Cadorin
  • Marco Testa
  • Tommaso Geri
  • Luana Colloca
  • Giacomo Rossettini

Abstract

Aims and objectives To describe contextual factors (CFs) used by nurses to increase placebo and to prevent nocebo effects. Background Placebo effects have been studied in the nursing discipline, but nocebo effects still remain unexplored. Recently, a set of CFs functioning as triggers of placebo/nocebo effects has been described; however, its use in daily care has never been documented to date. Design A national cross‐sectional survey, according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys guidelines and STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), was performed in 2016. Methods A wide sample of Italian nurses belonging to four national associations was involved. A questionnaire based on CFs literature was developed and administered through the SurveyMonkey Software® exploring: (a) CFs definition, (b) beliefs, (c) case‐by‐case frequency of use, (d) circumstances of application, (e) clinical conditions where participants perceived their potential beneficial effects, (f) ethical implications and (g) communication issues with the patient. Results Out of 1,411 eligible nurses, 455 answered (32.2%) and 425 questionnaires (30.1%) were valid for the analysis. A total of 211 nurses (49.6%) defined the CFs as an intervention with a possible aspecific effect; participants believed in the CFs (2.91; 95%CI 2.88–2.94), using them >2 times/month, mainly in addition to a nursing intervention to optimise clinical outcomes (n = 79; 18.6%). Psychological and physiological therapeutic effects have been perceived mainly in chronic pain (n = 259; 60.9%) and insomnia (n = 243; 57.2%). According to participants, CFs have been reported as ethically acceptable when exerting beneficial psychological effects (n = 148; 34.8%); however, 103 (24.2%) of nurses did not communicate to the patient when CFs were used. Conclusions Nurses are aware of CFs as elements to increase the placebo and prevent the nocebo effects in concomitance with evidence‐based nursing interventions. Relevance to clinical practice The CFs valued by nurses and experienced as effective are mainly based upon the internal quality of the nurse and the quality of the relationship between the nurse and the patient. These qualities require a large personal investment; therefore, nurses should be supported in developing these qualities since their nursing graduation.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:9-10:p:1966-1978
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.14809
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.14809
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.14809?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Rebecca Feo & Alison Kitson & Tiffany Conroy, 2018. "How fundamental aspects of nursing care are defined in the literature: A scoping review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2189-2229, June.
    3. Carmen WH Chan & David R Thompson, 2006. "The use of placebo in clinical nursing research," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 521-524, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Annamaria Bagnasco & Milko Zanini & Nicoletta Dasso & Silvia Rossi & Fiona Timmins & Miss Carolina Galanti & Giuseppe Aleo & Gianluca Catania & Loredana Sasso, 2020. "Dignity, privacy, respect and choice—A scoping review of measurement of these concepts within acute healthcare practice," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1832-1857, June.
    2. Roger Watson, 2006. "Editorial: The placebo effect," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 519-519, May.
    3. Alexandra Mudd & Rebecca Feo & Tiffany Conroy & Alison Kitson, 2020. "Where and how does fundamental care fit within seminal nursing theories: A narrative review and synthesis of key nursing concepts," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3652-3666, October.
    4. Anett Skorpen Tarberg & Bodil J. Landstad & Torstein Hole & Morten Thronæs & Marit Kvangarsnes, 2020. "Nurses’ experiences of compassionate care in the palliative pathway," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4818-4826, December.
    5. Marlene Æ. Jensen & Mette N. Yilmaz & Birgith Pedersen, 2020. "Involving patients and nurses in choosing between two validated questionnaires to identify chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy before implementing in clinical practice—A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3847-3859, October.
    6. Alvisa Palese & Jessica Longhini & Matteo Danielis, 2021. "To what extent Unfinished Nursing Care tools coincide with the discrete elements of The Fundamentals of Care Framework? A comparative analysis based on a systematic review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1-2), pages 239-265, January.
    7. Annamaria Bagnasco & Nicoletta Dasso & Silvia Rossi & Carolina Galanti & Gloria Varone & Gianluca Catania & Milko Zanini & Giuseppe Aleo & Roger Watson & Mark Hayter & Loredana Sasso, 2020. "Unmet nursing care needs on medical and surgical wards: A scoping review of patients’ perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3-4), pages 347-369, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Alison Kitson, 2018. "Moving on…," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(11-12), pages 2175-2176, June.
    10. Helle Vendel Petersen & Signe Foged & Vibeke Nørholm, 2019. "“It is two worlds” cross‐sectoral nurse collaboration related to care transitions: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(9-10), pages 1999-2008, May.
    11. Hanna‐Maria Matinolli & Riitta Mieronkoski & Sanna Salanterä, 2020. "Health and medical device development for fundamental care: Scoping review," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11-12), pages 1822-1831, June.
    12. 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.

    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:wly:jocnur:v:28:y:2019:i:9-10:p:1966-1978. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.