Cited by 172Pain Management and Placebo EffectPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

A systematic review of factors that contribute to nocebo effects

Open access
Webster, Rebecca K., Weinman, John, Rubin, G. James·2016·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Medication side effects are common, often leading to reduced quality of life, nonadherence, and financial costs for health services. Many side effects are the result of a psychologically mediated "nocebo effect." This review identifies the risk factors involved in the development of nocebo effects. METHOD: Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Journals@Ovid full text, and Global Health were searched using the terms "nocebo" and "placebo effect." To be included, studies must have exposed people to an inert substance and have assessed 1 or more baseline or experimental factor(s) on its ability to predict symptom development in response to the inert exposure. RESULTS: Eighty-nine studies were included; 70 used an experimental design and 19 used a prospective design, identifying 14 different categories of risk factor. The strongest predictors of nocebo effects were a higher perceived dose of exposure, explicit suggestions that the exposure triggers arousal or symptoms, observing people experiencing symptoms from the exposure, and higher expectations of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce nocebo induced symptoms associated with medication or other interventions clinicians could reduce expectations of symptoms, limit suggestions of symptoms, correct unrealistic dose perceptions, and reduce exposure to people experiencing side effects. There is some evidence that we should do this especially for persons with at-risk personality types, though exactly which personality types these are requires further research. These suggestions have a downside in terms of consent and paternalism, but there is scope to develop innovative ways to reduce nocebo effects without withholding information. (PsycINFO Database Record

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/hea0000416

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The basic psychological mechanisms underlying the formation of negative expectations and nocebo effects are anticipation of and information about negative outcomes, prior lack of therapeutic effectiveness, and observation of other patients' pain worsening.

    “The basic psychological mechanisms underlying the formation of negative expectations and thus, nocebo effects, are anticipation of and information about negative outcomes,34,76 prior lack of therapeutic effectiveness,33,34 and observation of other patients' pain worsening.42,60,74,77,78”
  • Negative verbal suggestions designed to induce higher expectations for itch or pain led to higher reports of both itch and pain, with stronger effects for itch compared to pain.

    “In the study by van Laarhoven et al, negative verbal suggestions were designed to induce higher expectations for itch or pain, and it was revealed that higher itch and pain expectancies led to higher reports of both events. Evaluation of both nocebo effects revealed stronger effects for itch when compared to pain.8,76”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Angelucci, L., & Pena, G. (1997). Expectations as explanatory variable of the placebo effect. Revista Interamericana De Psicologia, 31(1), 109-132.
  2. Gavrylyuk, G., Ehrt, O., & Meissner, K. (2010). Lack of expectancy-induced placebo effects on pupil size and accommodation. Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Psychologie, 19(3-4), 154-160.
  3. Molcan, J., & et al. (1982). Perceived effect of placebo unrelated to the effect imputed to a fancied drug. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 24(4), 270-271.
  4. Mrna, B., & Skrivanek, A. (1985). Placebo effect on healthy volunteers-athletes. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 27(1), 42-43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Webster, R. K., Weinman, J., & Rubin, G. J.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Webster, Rebecca K.
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2016-12
Volume
35
Issue
12
Pages
1334-1355
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2517898512
Cited by
172
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
nocebo effect, placebo effect, risk factors, adverse drug reactions, symptom observation, psychological mediation
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Risk Factors, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions, Nocebo Effect

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review