An Exploration of Knowledge and Attitudes of Medical Students and Rheumatologists to Placebo and Nocebo Effects: Threshold Concepts in Clinical Practice

Introduction: Understanding placebo and nocebo responses (context/meaning effects [CMEs]) is fundamental to physician agency. Specific instruction in CMEs is often lacking in medical education. Patient–practitioner interactions may challenge medical students’ understanding of biomedical causality and the nexus between this, practical ethics and professionalism across various conceptual and applied aspects of CMEs. This study compared the corpus of knowledge and phronesis related to CMEs between Australian graduate medical students and rheumatologists to gain a sophisticated understanding of this relationship to inform curriculum development. Method: In 2013 and 2014, the authors surveyed third-year medical students undertaking a graduate programme in an Australian medical school and Australian rheumatologists to ascertain their understanding of placebo and nocebo responses. The survey ascertained (1) the alignment of the respondents’ understanding of CMEs with accepted facts and concepts; (2) opinions on the ethical status of CMEs; and (3) responses to 2 scenarios designed to explore matters of biomedical causality, practical ethics and professionalism. Results: There were 88 completed surveys returned, 53 rheumatologists and 35 students. Similar proportions within each group identified CMEs, with most (n = 79/88 [89.8%]) correctly recognising a placebo (rheumatologists: 50 [94.3%], students: 29 [82.9%]) and approximately three-quarters (n = 65/88 [73.9%]) correctly recognising nocebo effects (rheumatologists: 39 [73.6%], students: 26 [74.3%]). Statistically significant differences between practitioners and students were observed in relation to the following: placebo responders and placebo responsiveness; placebos as a ‘diagnostic tool’; placebos usage in clinical practice and research, and nocebo effects. Conclusions: Physicians require an awareness of CMEs and the fact that they arise from and influence the effective agency of health care professionals. Curricular emphasis is needed to permit an honest assessment of the components that influence when, how and why patient outcomes arise, and how one’s agency might have neutral or negative effects but could be inclined towards positive and away from negative patient outcomes.

Establishing Appropriate Agency Relationships for Providers in China

Physicians play multiple roles in a health system. They typically serve simultaneously as the agent for patients, for insurers, for their own medical practices, and for the hospital facilities where they practice. Theoretical and empirical results have demonstrated that financial relations among these different stakeholders can affect clinical outcomes as well as the efficiency and quality of care. What are the physicians’ roles as the agents of Chinese patients? The marketization approach of China’s economic reforms since 1978 has made hospitals and physicians profit-driven. Such profit-driven behavior and the financial tie between hospitals and physicians have in turn made physicians more the agents of hospitals rather than of their patients. While this commentary acknowledges physicians’ ethics and their dedication to their patients, it argues that the current physician agency relation in China has created barriers to achieving some of the central goals of current provider-side health care reform efforts. In addition to eliminating existing perverse financial incentives for both hospitals and physicians, the need for which is already agreed upon by numerous scholars, we argue that the success of the ongoing Chinese public hospital reform and of overall health care reform also relies on establishing appropriate physician-hospital agency relations. This commentary proposes 2 essential steps to establish such physician-hospital agency relations: (1) minimize financial ties between senior physicians and tertiary-level public hospitals by establishing a separate reimbursement system for senior physicians, and (2) establishing a comprehensive physician professionalism system underwritten by the Chinese government, professional physician associations, and major health care facilities as well as by physician leadership representatives. Neither of these suggestions is addressed adequately in current health care reform activities.