Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29405507›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of health psychology2018

Medicine-related beliefs predict attribution of symptoms to a sham medicine: A prospective study.

Rebecca K Webster, John Weinman, G James Rubin

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2023
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Predicting the side effects of influenza vaccination.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Health Scares: Tracing Their Nature, Growth and Spread.Clinical psychology in Europe · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Biosimilars and the nocebo effect].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rebecca K WebsterDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Weston Education Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5136-1098
John WeinmanInstitute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, UK.
G James RubinDepartment of Psychological Medicine, Weston Education Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeNocebo EffectAdultAge FactorsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleProspective StudiesSex Factorsmedicine beliefsnocebo effectplacebopredictorssymptom attribution

Identifiers

PMID29405507
PMCPMC5900880
OpenAlexW2785191195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.