Dataset Information

Use of placebo interventions among Swiss primary care providers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Placebo interventions can have meaningful effects for patients. However, little is known about the circumstances of their use in clinical practice. We aimed to investigate to what extent and in which way Swiss primary care providers use placebo interventions. Furthermore we explored their ideas about the ethical and legal issues involved.

Methods

599 questionnaires were sent to general practitioners (GPs) and paediatricians in private practice in the Canton of Zurich in Switzerland. To allow for subgroup analysis GPs in urban, suburban, and rural areas as well as paediatricians were selected in an even ratio.

Results

233 questionnaires were completed (response rate 47%). 28% of participants reported that they never used placebo interventions. More participants used impure placebos therapeutically than pure placebos (57% versus 17%, McNemar's chi(2) = 78, p < 0.001). There is not one clear main reason for placebo prescription. Placebo use was communicated to patients mostly as being "a drug or a therapy" (64%). The most frequently chosen ethical premise was that they "can be used as long as the physician and the patient work together in partnership" (60% for pure and 75% for impure placebos, McNemar's chi(2) = 12, p < 0.001). A considerable number of participants (11-38%) were indecisive about statements regarding the ethical and legal legitimacy of using placebos.

Conclusion

The data obtained from Swiss primary care providers reflect a broad variety of views about placebo interventions as well as a widespread uncertainty regarding their legitimacy. Primary care providers seem to preferentially use impure as compared to pure placebos in their daily practice. An intense debate is required on appropriate standards regarding the clinical use of placebo interventions among medical professionals.

SUBMITTER: Fassler M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2731747 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of placebo interventions among Swiss primary care providers.

Fässler Margrit M Gnädinger Markus M Rosemann Thomas T Biller-Andorno Nikola N

BMC health services research 20090810

<h4>Background</h4>Placebo interventions can have meaningful effects for patients. However, little is known about the circumstances of their use in clinical practice. We aimed to investigate to what extent and in which way Swiss primary care providers use placebo interventions. Furthermore we explored their ideas about the ethical and legal issues involved.<h4>Methods</h4>599 questionnaires were sent to general practitioners (GPs) and paediatricians in private practice in the Canton of Zurich in ...[more]

PMID: 19664267

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPlacebos play an important role in clinical trials and several surveys have shown that they are also common in daily practice. Previous research focused primarily on the frequency of placebo use in outpatient care. Our aim was to explore physicians' views on the use of placebos in daily practice, whereby distinction was made between pure placebos (substances with no pharmacological effect, e.g. sugar pills) and impure placebos (substances with pharmacological effect but not on the condition being treated, e.g. antibiotics in viral infections or vitamins).MethodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with a sample of twelve primary care physicians (PCPs). The interview addressed individual definitions of a placebo, attitudes towards placebos and the participants' reasons for prescribing them. The interviews were transcribed and analysed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe definition of a placebo given by the majority of the PCPs in our study was one which actually only describes pure placebos. This definition, combined with the fact that most impure placebos were not regarded as placebos at all, means that most of the participating PCPs were not aware of the extent to which placebos are used in daily practice. The PCPs stated that they use placebos (both pure and impure) mainly in the case of non-severe diseases for which there was often no satisfactory somatic explanation. According to the PCPs, cases like this are often treated by complementary and alternative therapies and these, too, are associated with placebo effects. However, all PCPs felt that the ethical aspects of such treatment were unclear and they were unsure as to how to communicate the use of placebos to their patients. Most of them would appreciate ethical guidelines on how to deal with this issue.ConclusionsMany PCPs seem to be unaware that some of the drugs they prescribe are classified as impure placebos. Perceptions of effectiveness and doubts about the legal and ethical aspects of the use of placebos by PCPs may discourage their application. Dissemination of guidelines and consensus papers may be one approach, but it has to be acknowledged that the topic itself is in conflict with the PCPs' perception of themselves as professional and reliable physicians.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In response to the rising burden of cardiovascular risk factors, the Malaysian government has implemented Enhanced Primary Healthcare (EnPHC) interventions in July 2017 at public clinic level to improve management and clinical outcomes of type 2 diabetes and hypertensive patients. Healthcare providers (HCPs) play crucial roles in healthcare service delivery and health system reform can influence HCPs' job satisfaction. However, studies evaluating HCPs' job satisfaction following primary care transformation remain scarce in low- and middle-income countries. This study aims to evaluate the effects of EnPHC interventions on HCPs' job satisfaction. METHODS:This is a quasi-experimental study conducted in 20 intervention and 20 matched control clinics. We surveyed all HCPs who were directly involved in patient management. A self-administered questionnaire which included six questions on job satisfaction were assessed on a scale of 1-4 at baseline (April and May 2017) and post-intervention phase (March and April 2019). Unadjusted intervention effect was calculated based on absolute differences in mean scores between intervention and control groups after implementation. Difference-in-differences analysis was used in the multivariable linear regression model and adjusted for providers and clinics characteristics to detect changes in job satisfaction following EnPHC interventions. A negative estimate indicates relative decrease in job satisfaction in the intervention group compared with control group. RESULTS:A total of 1042 and 1215 HCPs responded at baseline and post-intervention respectively. At post-intervention, the intervention group reported higher level of stress with adjusted differences of - 0.139 (95% CI -0.266,-0.012; p = 0.032). Nurses, being the largest workforce in public clinics were the only group experiencing dissatisfaction at post-intervention. In subgroup analysis, nurses from intervention group experienced increase in work stress following EnPHC interventions with adjusted differences of - 0.223 (95% CI -0.419,-0.026; p = 0.026). Additionally, the same group were less likely to perceive their profession as well-respected at post-intervention (β = - 0.175; 95% CI -0.331,-0.019; p = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that EnPHC interventions had resulted in some untoward effect on HCPs' job satisfaction. Job dissatisfaction can have detrimental effects on the organisation and healthcare system. Therefore, provider experience and well-being should be considered before introducing healthcare delivery reforms to avoid overburdening of HCPs.

Project description:BackgroundIrrational antibiotics use in clinical prescription, especially in primary health care (PHC) is accelerating the spread of antibiotics resistance (ABR) around the world. It may be greatly useful to improve the rational use of antibiotics by effectively intervening providers' prescription behaviors in PHC. This study aimed to systematically review the interventions targeted to providers' prescription behaviors in PHC and its' effects on improving the rational use of antibiotics.MethodsThe literatures were searched in Ovid Medline, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and two Chinese databases with a time limit from January 1st, 1998 to December 1st, 2018. The articles included in our review were randomized control trial, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series, and the main outcomes measured in these articles were providers' prescription behaviors. The Cochrane Collaboration criteria were used to assess the risk of bias of the studies by two reviewers. Narrative analysis was performed to analyze the effect size of interventions.ResultsA total of 4422 studies were identified in this study and 17 of them were included in the review. Among 17 included studies, 13 studies were conducted in the Europe or in the United States, and the rest were conducted in low-income and-middle-income countries (LMICs). According to the Cochrane Collaboration criteria, 12 studies had high risk of bias and 5 studies had medium risk of bias. There was moderate-strength evidence that interventions targeted to improve the providers' prescription behaviors in PHC decreased the antibiotics prescribing and improved the rational use of antibiotics.ConclusionsInterventions targeted PHC providers' prescription behaviours could be an effective way to decrease the use of antibiotics in PHC and to promote the rational use of antibiotics. However, we cannot compare the effects between different interventions because of heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures.

Project description:BackgroundA comprehensive picture of how the US population engages in specialty care use is lacking, even though redesign models focused on specialty care are becoming more popular.ObjectiveTo describe the type of provider, primary care or specialist, most often seen by individuals, to test associations between type of provider most often seen and insurance coverage, and to test associations between the number of generalist and specialist visits and insurance coverage.DesignCross-sectional analysis of 2013-2016 Medicaid Expenditure Panel Survey. Logistic and negative binomial models were used in multivariate regression modeling.ParticipantsDepending on the analysis, the study samples include between 71,402 and 79,518 US residents.Main measuresIndividuals' provider type most often seen, primary care visits, and specialist visits were reported.Key resultsMore than half of the sample (55%) predominantly visited primary care providers (or generalists), and 36% predominantly visited specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting generalists, 80% visited only one type of primary care provider, and 24% also visited one or more specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting specialists, 48% visited only one type of specialist, and 47% did not visit any generalists in the year. Among Medicare enrollees, 50% predominantly visited specialists, and 40% predominantly visited generalists. Medicare enrollment was associated with greater odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05), and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment and having no insurance were associated with lower odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05). Medicare enrollment was associated with 13% more generalist visits and 35% more specialist visits, and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment was associated with 38% more generalist visits and 15% more specialist visits (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsGiven the overall frequency of specialty care use and the reliance on multiple specialists in any given year, particularly among Medicare enrollees, public payers are uniquely positioned to promote specialty care redesign and champion improved coordination between specialists.

Project description:BackgroundDespite efforts to improve access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), such as buprenorphine, the number of opioid overdoses in the United States continues to rise. In April 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services removed the mandatory training requirement to obtain a buprenorphine waiver; the goal was to encourage more providers to prescribe buprenorphine, thus improving access. Little is known about the attitudes on buprenorphine prescribing after this policy change.ObjectiveThe primary objective was to assess attitudes among primary care providers toward the removal of the buprenorphine waiver training requirement. A secondary objective was to identify other barriers to prescribing buprenorphine.MethodsWe conducted a survey between September 15 and October 13, 2021 to assess the overall beliefs on the effectiveness of MOUD and attitudes toward the removal of the waiver training, current knowledge of buprenorphine, current practice styles related to screening for and treating OUD, and attitudes toward prescribing buprenorphine in the future. This survey was sent to 890 Mayo Clinic primary care providers in 5 US states.ResultsOne hundred twenty-three respondents (13.8%) completed the survey; 35.8% respondents agreed that the removal of the waiver training was a positive step. These respondents expressed a greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine. This group was also more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Approximately one-third (34.4%) of respondents reported perceived institutional support in prescribing buprenorphine. This group expressed greater confidence in diagnosing OUD, had greater familiarity with the different formulations, pharmacology, and titration of buprenorphine, and was more likely to prescribe (or continue to prescribe) buprenorphine in the future. Respondents who have been in practice for 11 to 20 years since completion of training were most likely to refer all OUD patients to specialists.ConclusionsResults of our survey suggests that simply removing the mandatory waiver training requirement is insufficient in positively changing attitudes toward buprenorphine prescribing. A key barrier is the perceived lack of institutional support. Future studies investigating effective ways to provide such support may help improve providers' willingness to prescribe buprenorphine.

Dataset Information

Use of placebo interventions among Swiss primary care providers.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Use of placebo interventions among Swiss primary care providers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets