Trial reportBMC psychology2022
Patients' experiences treated with open-label placebo versus double-blind placebo: a mixed methods qualitative study.
Trial report in BMC psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic qualitative review of ethical issues in open label placebo in published research.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Placebo During the Maintenance Therapy of Ovarian Cancer in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- The role of expectations and tailored feedback on the open-label Placebo effect.Journal of health psychology · 2026Trial
- Open-Label Placebos as Adjunct for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Open-label placebos reduce weight in obesity: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- The pill you don't have to take that is still effective: neural correlates of imaginary placebo intake for regulating disgust.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024Trial
- Open-label placebos enhance test performance and reduce anxiety in learner drivers: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Evidencing general acceptability of open-label placebo use for tackling overtreatment in primary care: a mixed methods study.BMC medicine · 2023Trial
- A randomized controlled trial of effects of open-label placebo compared to double-blind placebo and treatment-as-usual on symptoms of allergic rhinitis.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Review
- Acceptance of Open-Label Placebos Is Linked to Holistic Health Beliefs and Thinking Styles.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- What the Patient Thinks and What the Patient Does: Placebo, Nocebo, and Therapy Adherence in Ulcerative Colitis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- From catastrophizing to catalyzing: does pain catastrophizing modulate the beneficial impact of open-label placebos for chronic low back pain? A secondary analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Hope in Medicine Scale.Clinical psychology in Europe · 2024Article
- Neural underpinnings of open-label placebo effects in emotional distress.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023Article
- Placebo: a brief updated review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2022Review
- Placebo mechanisms in aging: A randomized controlled trial comparing deceptive and open-label placebos on psychological, cognitive, and physical functioning in older adults.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is increasing evidence suggesting that open-label placebo (OLP) is an effective treatment for several medical conditions defined by self-report. However, little is known about patients' experiences with OLP, and no studies have directly compared patients' experiences in double-blind placebo (DBP) conditions.
methodsThis study was nested in a large randomized-controlled trial comparing the effects of OLP and DBP treatments in individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We randomly selected 33 participants for interviews concerning their experiences in the parent trial. The data were qualitatively analyzed using an iterative immersion/crystallization approach. We then compared the qualitative interview data to the quantitative IBS severity data assessed during the parent trial, using a mixed methods approach.
resultsTwo prominent interview themes were identified: (1) the participants' feelings about their treatment allocation and (2) their reflections about the treatment. Both OLP and DBP participants mentioned hope and curiosity as major feelings driving them to engage with their treatment. However, while DBP participants tended to be more enthusiastic about their allocation, OLP participants were more ambivalent. Furthermore, OLP participants reflected more on their treatment, often involving noticeable cognitive and emotional processes of self-reflection. They offered a variety of explanations for their symptom improvement and were significantly less likely to attribute it to the treatment itself than DBP participants (Χ
conclusionOLP and DBP participants share feelings of hope, uncertainty and curiosity but differ in the extent of conscious reflection. The counter-intuitive OLP prompts more self-examination, ambivalent feelings and active engagement compared to DBP. At the same time, OLP participants are more reluctant to attribute symptom improvement to their treatment. Our findings substantially add to the emerging picture of factors that distinguish OLP and DBP and their potential mechanisms.
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.