Pain
Conditions
Brief summary
Research has shown that placebo effects contribute substantially to clinical outcomes. Recent evidence suggests that placebos remain effective even if they are openly described as placebos (so-called Open-Label Placebos). In this study, the investigators examine hope and expectations as components of open-label placebos in an experimental study investigating pain..
Detailed description
A growing body of research has indicated that placebos contribute substantially to clinical outcomes. Yet, the implementation of deceptive placebos in clinical practice is incompatible with key principles of openness and patient autonomy. However, recent research suggests that placebos remain effective even if they openly described as placebos (so-called Open-Label Placebos (OLP)), hence questioning the necessity of deception in clinical trials. However, research identifying the specific mechanisms underlying OLP is lacking. Therefore, the current study aims to examine hope and expectations as components of OLP in pain. For this purpose, experimentally induced heat pain is examined. First, all participants receive heat pain stimuli and evaluate them. Next, participants are randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) a traditional deceptive placebo (DP) group, which is told that they receive an effective analgesic cream, (2) an OLP group inducing hope among the participants that the placebo cream could help them tolerating painful stimuli (OLP hope), (3) and OLP group raising the expectation that the placebo cream will help participants tolerating heat pain (OLP expectation), (4) a control group receiving no cream. Finally, participants receive and evaluate heat pain again.
Interventions
OTHERDP
Participants are informed that they are about to receive an effective analgesic cream. They are instructed to apply the cream using a cotton pad.
OTHEROLP Hope
Participants are informed that they are about to receive an placebo cream. They are told that the cream has no active pharmacological ingredient. Therefore, participants are supposed to evaluate the subjective probability for a positive effect of the cream as rather low. However, using verbal instructions, the investigator aims to induce hope among the participants that the cream could have a positive effect for them because this placebo cream did have a positive among some former participants who were similar to the current participant. The emphasis of this similarity (regarding age and sex) aims to induce a feeling of connectedness to previous participants who reported positive effects of the placebo cream.
OTHEROLP Expectation
Participants are informed that they are about to receive an placebo cream. They are told that the cream has no active pharmacological ingredient. However, participants are told that placebos have been shown to contribute substantially to clinical outcomes such as pain intensity/unpleasantness. This positive effect of placebos is reasoned by explaining learning mechanisms such as classical conditioning. We anticipated that after hearing this instruction, participants would consider it to be likely that the placebo has a positive effect for them.
OTHERPlacebo cream
The participants receive an inert placebo cream (standard basic cream with oil of thyme produced by a local pharmacy).
OTHERHeat pain
Participant receive heat pain stimuli using the suprathreshold method of the Thermo Sensory Analyser (TSA-II), a commonly used device to study pain sensation and analgesic effects.
Sponsors
Philipps University Marburg
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Masking description
Using a cover story, participants are instructed to think that there are three experimental groups: a treatment condition, a placebo condition, and a control condition. Therefore, participants from the open-label groups do know that they receive a placebo, but do not know which specific mechanism is being addressed in their condition.
Intervention model description
Participants are assigned to one of four experimental groups in parallel for the duration of the study
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* sufficient German language knowledge * at least 18 years old
Exclusion criteria
* current mental disorder * current medical disease * studying psychology or medicine * pregnancy or breastfeeding period * intake of drugs * severely visually impaired
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in pain intensity scale | Baseline and 45 minutes | Change in subjective pain intensity assessed using a visual analogue scale (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher values reflecting more pain intensity) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in pain unpleasantness scale | Baseline and 45 minutes | Change in subjective pain unpleasantness assessed using a visual analogue scale (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher values reflecting more pain unpleasantness) |
| Change in physiological heat pain threshold | Baseline and 45 minutes | Change in the individual heat pain threshold (the point when the stimulus changes from being warm to being painful) |
| Change in physiological heat pain tolerance | Baseline and 45 minutes | Change in the individual heat pain tolerance (the point when participants cannot stand the heat pain stimulus any longer) |
Countries
Germany
Outcome results
None listed