Trial reportBritish journal of health psychology2018
Medicine-related beliefs predict attribution of symptoms to a sham medicine: A prospective study.
Trial report in British journal of health psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changing Mindsets About Side Effects of the COVID-19 Vaccination: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2023Trial
- Preventing adverse events of chemotherapy for gastrointestinal cancer by educating patients about the nocebo effect: a randomized-controlled trial.BMC cancer · 2022Trial
- Exploring the Relationship Between Medicine Related Beliefs and Side-Effect Experience Among White Oral Contraceptive Users in the UK.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
- Low health literacy impact on headache diagnosis.Pain management · 2025Article
- Do patients with fibromyalgia syndrome and healthy people differ in their opinions on placebo effects in routine medical care?Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2025Article
- Predicting the side effects of influenza vaccination.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Article
- Chicken or egg? Attribution hypothesis and nocebo hypothesis to explain somatization associated to perceived RF-EMF exposure.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Development and validation of the General attitude towards Medication Questionnaire (GAMQ).BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Health Scares: Tracing Their Nature, Growth and Spread.Clinical psychology in Europe · 2023Article
- Developing a Mobile Health Application to Communicate Adverse Drug Reactions - Preconditions, Assessment of Possible Functionalities and Barriers for Patients and Their General Practitioners.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
- The Temporal Modulation of Nocebo Hyperalgesia in a Model of Sustained Pain.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Shedding Light on SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccination, and Auditory Symptoms: Causality or Spurious Conjunction?Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- [Biosimilars and the nocebo effect].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2020Article
- A test of positive suggestions about side effects as a way of enhancing the analgesic response to NSAIDs.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate a range of possible predictors of nocebo responses to medicines.
designProspective cohort study.
methodsIn total, 203 healthy adult volunteers completed measures concerning demographics, psychological factors, medicine-related beliefs, baseline symptoms, and symptom expectations before taking a sham pill, described as 'a well-known tablet available without prescription' that was known to be associated with several side effects. Associations between these measures and subsequent attribution of symptoms to the tablet were assessed using a hurdle model consisting of a joint logistic and truncated negative binomial regression.
resultsMen had an increased odds of attributing symptoms to the tablet OR = 1.52, and older participants had decreased odds, OR = 0.97. Medicine-related beliefs were important, with modern health worries, belief that medicines cause harm and perceived sensitivity to medicines associated with increased odds of symptom attribution, OR = 1.02, 1.10, 1.09, respectively. Trust in medicines and pharmaceutical companies decreased the odds of symptom attribution, OR = 0.91, 0.88, respectively. The number of symptoms at baseline and the expected likelihood of symptoms were associated with an increased odds of attributing symptoms to the tablet, OR = 1.07, 1.06, respectively. Anxiety, previous symptom experience, symptom expectations, and modern health worries were also important in predicting the number of symptoms participants attributed to the tablet.
conclusionIt is hard to predict who is at risk of developing nocebo responses to medicines from demographic or personality characteristics. Context-specific factors such as beliefs about and trust in medicines, current symptoms and symptom expectations are more useful as predictors. More work is needed to investigate this in a patient sample. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Many patients report non-specific side effects to their medication which may arise through a nocebo effect. Whether some people are particularly predisposed to experience nocebo effects remains unclear. What does this study add? Demographic and personality characteristics are poor predictors of symptom attribution to a sham medicine. Instead, context-specific factors that concern people's beliefs surrounding medicines, their current symptoms, and symptom expectations are more useful as predictors of symptom attribution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.