Search

As the SARS-COV-2 virus spread across the world in the early months of 2020, people sought to make sense of the complex and rapidly evolving situation by adopting mindsets about what the pandemic was and what it meant for their lives.We aimed to measure the mindsets of American adults over the first six months of the COVID-19 pandemic to understand their relative stability over time and their relationship with emotions, behaviors, experiences, and wellbeing.American adults (N = 5,365) were recruited in early March of 2020 to participate in a longitudinal survey with follow-up surveys at 6-weeks and 6-months. Three mindsets that people formed about the COVID-19 pandemic were measured: 'the pandemic is a catastrophe', 'the pandemic is manageable' and 'the pandemic can be an opportunity'.In line with our pre-registered hypotheses, these mindsets were associated with a unique and largely self-fulfilling pattern of emotions (positive, negative), behaviors (healthy, unhealthy, and compliance with CDC guidelines), experiences (growth/connection, isolation/meaninglessness) and wellbeing (physical health, mental health, quality of life). Moreover, mindsets formed in the first week of the pandemic were associated with quality of life 6 months later, an effect that was mediated by emotions and health behaviors.The mindsets that people adopted about the COVID-19 pandemic - that it is 'a catastrophe', 'manageable', or 'an opportunity' may explain some of the heterogeneity in the lived experiences of Americans through their self-fulfilling impact on peoples' emotions, health behaviors, and wellbeing.

OBJECTIVE Recent research on open-label placebos, or placebos administered without deception or concealment, suggests that they can be effective in a variety of conditions. The current research sought to unpack the mechanisms underlying the treatment efficacy of open-label placebos. METHOD A health care provider induced an allergic reaction in 148 participants via a histamine skin prick test. Participants were then exposed to 1 of 4 conditions additively leveraging various mechanisms of open-label placebo treatments: a supportive patient-provider relationship, a medical ritual, positive expectations, and a rationale about the power of placebos. RESULTS There were no main effects of condition on allergic responses. However, participant beliefs about placebos moderated the effect of open-label placebo treatment condition on physiological allergic reactions: the condition including all 4 components of open-label placebos (a supportive patient-provider relationship, a medical ritual, positive expectations, and a rationale about the power of placebos) significantly reduced physiological allergic reaction among participants with a strong belief in placebos compared with participants in the control group. CONCLUSION Participants' beliefs about placebos interact with information from the provider to reduce physiological allergic reactions in response to an open-label placebo treatment. This study underscores the importance of measuring and understanding how participants' beliefs influence outcomes of treatment, and furthers our understanding of when and how open-label placebo treatments work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Given research showing that the very act of communicating side effects can increase their likelihood, how can providers inform patients about side effects while upholding their oath to do no unnecessary harm? An emerging approach provides a potential solution: truthfully describe certain minor side effects as a sign the treatment is active and working in the body. This approach focuses on instilling adaptive mindsets about the meaning of side effects while still keeping patients informed. This article describes existing research suggesting that this approach can be helpful in improving experience and outcomes in treatments for pain, hypertension and allergy. Compared with control groups given a standard, empathetic message about side effects, patients who were informed that side effects are a sign treatment is working were less anxious about side effects and rated them as less threatening and intense. A longitudinal, randomised controlled trial of this approach in patients receiving oral immunotherapy for food allergies found that describing side effects as a sign treatment was working reduced the rate at which patients contacted providers with concerns about side effects and led to greater increases in a biomarker of allergic tolerance from pretreatment to post-treatment (peanut-specific blood IgG4). In unveiling this approach, this article also raises important issues regarding which treatments and symptoms this approach should be applied to. Finally, we outline questions future research should address to further understand and leverage this approach.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can lead to desensitization to food allergens, but patients can experience treatment-related symptoms of allergic reactions that cause anxiety and treatment dropout. Interventions to improve OIT for patients are needed. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fostering the mindset that non-life-threatening symptoms during OIT can signal desensitization improves treatment experience and outcomes. METHODS: In a randomized, blinded, controlled phase II study, 50 children/adolescents (28% girls, aged 7–17, M=10.82, SD=3.01) completed six-month OIT for peanut allergies. Patients and their parent(s) had monthly clinic visits at the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy & Asthma Research between 1/5/2017–8/3/2017. All families received identical symptom management training. In a 1:1 approach, 24 patients and their families were informed that non-life-threatening symptoms during OIT were unfortunate side effects of treatment, and 26 patients and their families were informed that non-life-threatening symptoms could signal desensitization. Families participated in activities to reinforce these symptom mindsets. RESULTS: Compared to families informed that symptoms are side effects, families informed that symptoms can signal desensitization were less anxious (B=−0.46, 95% CI (−0.76 to −0.16), p=0.003), less likely to contact staff about symptoms (5/24[9.4%] vs. 27/154[17.5%] instances, p=0.036), experienced fewer non-life-threatening symptoms as doses increased (B(Interaction)=−0.54(−0.83 to −0.27), p

Background: Research demonstrates that the placebo effect can influence the effectiveness of medical treatments and accounts for a significant proportion of healing in many conditions. However, providers may differ in the degree to which they consciously or unconsciously leverage the forces that produce placebo effects in clinical practice. Some studies suggest that the manner in which providers interact with patients shapes the magnitude of placebo effects, but this research has yet to distill the specific dimensions of patient–provider interactions that are most likely to influence placebo response and the mechanisms through which aspects of patient–provider interactions impact placebo response. Methods: We offer a simplifying and unifying framework in which interactions that boost placebo response can be dissected into two key dimensions: patients’ perceptions of competence, or whether a doctor “gets it” (i.e., displays of efficiency, knowledge, and skill), and patients’ perceptions of warmth, or whether a doctor “gets me” (i.e., displays of personal engagement, connection, and care for the patient). Results: First, we discuss how this framework builds on past research in psychology on social perception of competence and warmth and in medical literature on models of effective medical care, patient satisfaction, and patient–provider interactions. Then we consider possible mechanisms through which competence and warmth may affect the placebo response in healthcare. Finally, we share original data from patients and providers highlighting how this framework applies to healthcare. Both patient and provider data illustrate actionable ways providers can demonstrate competence and warmth to patients. Discussion: We conclude with recommendations for how researchers and practitioners alike can more systematically consider the role of provider competence and warmth in patient–provider interactions to deepen our understanding of placebo effects and, ultimately, enable providers to boost placebo effects alongside active medications (i.e., with known medical ingredients) and treatment in clinical care.

Time matters for healthcare quality. Patients explicitly desire more time with providers and patient perceptions of visit length influence meaningful outcomes, including patient satisfaction and adherence intentions.1, 2 Given existing system-level barriers and competing demands (e.g., electronic health records, high patient volume), it may be challenging for providers to increase the objective amount of time they have with patients.3 However, research suggests that patient perceptions of time with the provider can outweigh actual visit length1, 2 and, fortuitously, that these perceptions are malleable.4 Little research has tested what providers can do to shape patients’ perceptions of the time providers spend with them. The current study tested whether provider demeanor, including the well-documented traits of warmth (e.g., attentiveness, care, and connection with patients) and competence (e.g., displays of knowledge, skill, and efficiency),5, 6 influenced patient time perceptions of a fixed-length medical visit.

Alia Crum and colleagues argue that acting on the growing evidence about the influence of patient mindset and social context on response to healthcare can improve outcomes

Research on placebo effects demonstrates that physicians’ words powerfully influence patient health outcomes, catalyzing healing responses in conjunction with inactive treatments.1 But what are the effects of physicians’ words alone? In the quarter of doctor’s office visits in the USA in which medication goes unmentioned,2 what physicians say to patients may be especially impactful. However, research on the power of positive words from the provider is mixed. Some studies indicate that consultations including positive assurance lead to improved patient health,3 while others find no effect of physician assurance on patient outcomes.4 As physicians face increasing time demands, including higher patient volume and more electronic medical record documentation,5 the need to quantify the benefit of the many primary care visits in which medication is not discussed is paramount.2 The present study examined the effect of physician assurance absent pharmacological treatment—in this case, a simple sentence in which physicians told patients their symptoms would diminish—on patient allergic reactions.