ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
A dose of doubt: a qualitative study on placebo regulations.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Placebo use is common in primary care, yet ethical and legal concerns persist, and few qualitative studies have explored physicians' views on placebo regulation. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 primary care physicians from 2 German-speaking Swiss cantons to explore their definitions of placebos, usage in clinical practice, knowledge of existing regulations, and attitudes toward potential regulatory frameworks. Participants were recruited from a publicly available physician registry, yielding a 4.9% response rate. Results: Participants consistently reported using at least impure placebos in their practice, while references to the use of pure placebos were relatively uncommon. A distinction between pure and impure placebos emerged, with the latter generally viewed as more ethically acceptable. Risk-benefit evaluation was emphasized as the primary justification for placebo use. Most participants had not actively sought legal information, and knowledge about current regulations varied considerably. While clear support for specific regulation was rare, most participants did not perceive it as necessary, often citing distrust in regulatory systems or concerns that formal rules could restrict therapeutic flexibility. Expert bodies such as the Swiss Medical Association were mentioned as potential sources of guidance. Discussion: The findings highlight a practice-oriented, risk-benefit-driven approach to placebo use, shaped by skepticism toward regulation and limited legal awareness. Despite frequent use, physicians operate in a legally ambiguous space and express limited demand for regulatory clarity, suggesting a need for targeted professional discourse rather than strict formal regulation.
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.