The Clinical Inadequacy of the Placebo Model and the Development of an Alternative Conceptual Framework
Abstract
Placebo effects are often attributed to clinical interactions and contextual factors that affect expectations of the patient about the treatment and result in symptom changes. The prevailing conceptualization consists of an undifferentiated placebo response that needs to be minimized in controlled investigations and maximized in clinical practice. However, treatment outcome is the cumulative result of the interaction of several classes of variables with a selected treatment: living conditions (housing, nutrition, work environment, social support), patient characteristics (age, sex, genetics, general health conditions, personality, well-being), illness features and previous therapeutic experience, self-management, and treatment setting (physician's attitude and attention, illness behavior). Such variables may be therapeutic or countertherapeutic, and are unlikely to be simply additive. In certain patients their interactive combination may lead to clinical improvement, whereas in other cases it may produce no effect, and, in a third group, it may lead to worsening of the condition. Maximizing patients' expectations does not necessarily result in sustained effects and, in due course, may actually lead to worsening of the condition (violation of expectations). In this paper, we outline a multifactorial conceptual model that may have implications for the design of clinical trials as well as for clinical practice, with special reference to psychopharmacology and psychotherapy. The effects of drug treatment may be potentiated by specific nonpharmacological treatment strategies, and this synergism may disclose significant differences against placebo. Medical outcomes may be unsatisfactory not because technical interventions are missing, but because our conceptual models and thinking are inadequate.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Six epileptic patients on stable-dose lamotrigine monotherapy presented end-of-dose new withdrawal symptoms (anxiety, emotional lability, irritability).
“In addition, 6 epileptic patients on stable-dose lamotrigine monotherapy presented end-of-dose new withdrawal symptoms (i.e., anxiety, emotional lability, irritability) [180].”
From Acute and Persistent Withdrawal Syndromes Following Discontinuation of Psychotropic Medications (2020) · cites this paper as [180]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 63 · Cited by 93
- Authors
- Fava, G. A., Guidi, J., Rafanelli, C., & Rickels, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Bologna (IT)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 332-340
- ISSN
- 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
- 1423-0348
- OpenAlex
- W2766389472
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 15
- FWCI
- 7.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- placebo effect, placebo response, patient expectations, expectancy violation, living conditions, patient characteristics, illness behavior, self-management, psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, clinical trial design
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Psychopharmacology, Psychotherapy, Research Design, Placebo Effect, Treatment Outcome
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