Trial reportBMJ open2021
Changing mindsets about side effects.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Trait responsiveness to verbal suggestions predicts nocebo responding: A meta-analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Mitigating the Nocebo Effect in Biosimilar Use and Switching: A Systematic Review.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Changing mindsets about methotrexate in the rheumatology clinic to reduce side effects and improve adherence: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2025Trial
- 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
- Placebo, Nocebo, and Machine Learning: How Generative AI Could Shape Patient Perception in Mental Health Care.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Long Head of Biceps Tendinopathy Is Associated With Age and Cuff Tendinopathy on MRI Obtained for Evaluation of Shoulder Pain.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2025Article
- Examining the association of vaccine-related mindsets and post-vaccination antibody response, side effects, and affective outcomes.Brain, behavior, & immunity - health · 2024Article
- The Perspectives of Individuals with Chronic Stroke on Motor Recovery: A Qualitative Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Working with patients' treatment expectations - what we can learn from homeopathy.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Psychological factors associated with reporting side effects following COVID-19 vaccination: A prospective cohort study (CoVAccS - Wave 3).Journal of psychosomatic research · 2023Article
- COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: The Perils of Peddling Science by Social Media and the Lay Press.Vaccines · 2022Review
- Longitudinal changes in COVID-19 vaccination intent among South African adults: evidence from the NIDS-CRAM panel survey, February to May 2021.BMC public health · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Given research showing that the very act of communicating side effects can increase their likelihood, how can providers inform patients about side effects while upholding their oath to do no unnecessary harm? An emerging approach provides a potential solution: truthfully describe certain minor side effects as a sign the treatment is active and working in the body. This approach focuses on instilling adaptive mindsets about the meaning of side effects while still keeping patients informed. This article describes existing research suggesting that this approach can be helpful in improving experience and outcomes in treatments for pain, hypertension and allergy. Compared with control groups given a standard, empathetic message about side effects, patients who were informed that side effects are a sign treatment is working were less anxious about side effects and rated them as less threatening and intense. A longitudinal, randomised controlled trial of this approach in patients receiving oral immunotherapy for food allergies found that describing side effects as a sign treatment was working reduced the rate at which patients contacted providers with concerns about side effects and led to greater increases in a biomarker of allergic tolerance from pretreatment to post-treatment (peanut-specific blood IgG4). In unveiling this approach, this article also raises important issues regarding which treatments and symptoms this approach should be applied to. Finally, we outline questions future research should address to further understand and leverage this approach.
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.