There should be some clarification of exactly what we are talking about when we use the term "placebo."
Several definitions can be found, but for the purpose of this discussion, we will define placebo as "any therapeutic procedure which has an effect on a patient, symptoms, syndrome or disease but which is objectively without specific activity for the condition being treated."1
The placebo effect should be defined as "a change in the body, or body-mind unit, that occurs as a result of the symbolic significance that one attributes to an event or object in the healing environment."2
Before scientific medicine, those physicians with the most convincing approach and professional charisma were the most effective.
"Physicians clearly knew that even a plain sugar pill - once given to patients with a reassuring and compassionate attitude - could alleviate their suffering."3
Study of the placebo effect was launched by Henry Beecher in 1955 with his paper "The Powerful Placebo," in which he determined that an average of 32 percent of patients respond to a placebo.4
Since that time, research into the placebo effect has flourished. Many have confirmed the one-third placebo response found by Beecher. There have been studies that have attempted to explain away the one-third placebo response due to spontaneous remission.
This attempt was somewhat successful except in the areas related to pain.5 Response to placebo in patients with motor disorders such as Parkinson's disease has also emerged as reproducible.
The Mind Connection
There have been two psychological theories proposed to explain the placebo effect. Classical conditioning suggests that repeated exposure to a given stimulus can evoke a conditioned response over time, even when the stimulus is similar to the original but devoid of its actual therapeutic properties.
An example of this is a sugar pill evoking the same conditioned response as a pain pill because the patient associates the small, round, white pill with pain relief.
This can then be broadened to include nearly anything in the patient/provider environment. The stimulus might be a lab coat, treatment table, modality machine or even the presence of the provider, if these have been previously associated with pain relief.
Expectation theory is the second theory on how the placebo effect works. It contends that if a patient expects or believes he will have a positive response to a treatment, then he will. This positive response occurs even when the treatment has no therapeutic property.
This theory also goes another step, suggesting that the patient will have a negative response if he expects or believes a negative outcome will be obtained from the treatment. This is commonly called the "nocebo" effect. The expectation theory has been shown to operate through the body's endogenous opioid system.6
More recent studies have shown that the placebo effect works through both opioid and non-opioid systems.7 Though it is beyond the scope of this article, there is considerable ongoing research that is tracing the neural pathways that mediate the placebo effect.
One interesting study has even shown specificity in the body's response to placebo effect. Benedetti, et al., have shown that the opioid-mediated placebo response can be directed to specific areas of the body based on specific verbal instructions regarding that body part.8 This was also shown through application of a placebo cream to a specific area of the body.
An important final research finding is that the placebo effect is also able to magnify a legitimate medical treatment. In one example, researchers evaluated the use of four pain medications (buprenorphine, tramadol, ketorolac and metamizol) using open injection with positive verbal cues versus hidden injection through automatic infusion pumps.9 The medication dosage to give 50 percent pain relief was considerably higher in the hidden injection group compared to the open injection group.
Healthcare Meaning
So what does all this mean to the provider? First and foremost, it should remind us that we are treating the whole patient, not just a body part or an injury.
Many times we say things to patients that can have a great positive or negative effect on their outcomes. When someone says to a patient, "Well, your X-ray shows some arthritis, so you may have to learn to live with it," they may have punched that patient's ticket for a lifetime of pain expectation.
Many therapists are familiar with studies that show similar radiology findings in groups of people, some of whom have pain while others have none. We have seen X-rays on patients who have only the slightest amount of arthritic change and they have severe pain. At the same time, we have seen severe arthritic changes on the radiograph, for instance in the hip joint, and wonder how the person even walks - yet they report only mild discomfort.
Is this all based on an individual's natural pain tolerance, or have these patients been given two different sets of expectations?
As we explain our treatment programs to patients, do we meagerly explain what the outcome might be or what we hope it will be, and miss out on great expectations?
Have we seen providers with outstanding knowledge and skills have only mediocre outcomes with patients? Have we seen those with average clinical skills who can almost literally talk a patient into getting better? What we say, how we say it and the environment in which we say it can have an impact on the patient's outcome.
http://lpn.advanceweb.com/editorial/content/editorial.aspx?cc=115908
Buy pain medications FedEx next day and free prescriptionOnline prescription FedEx overnight shippingAccepted credit cards: Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover card. List of states that we can ship to: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming