Placebos in Clinical Practice: Comparing Attitudes, Beliefs, and Patterns of Use between Academic Psychiatrists and Nonpsychiatrists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controversial and ethically tenuous, the use of placebos is central to medicine but even more pivotal to psychosocial therapies. Scholars, researchers, and practitioners largely disagree about the conceptualization of placebos. While different professionals often confound the meanings of placebo effects with placebo responses, physicians continue to prescribe placebos as part of clinical practice. Our study aims to review attitudes and beliefs concerning placebos outside of clinical research. Herein we compare patterns of placebo use reported by academic psychiatrists with those reported by physicians from different specialties across Canadian medical schools. Using a web-based tool, we circulated an online survey to all 17 Canadian medical schools, with a special emphasis on psychiatry departments therein and in university-affiliated teaching hospitals. A variation on earlier efforts, our 5-minute, 21-question survey was anonymous. Among the 606 respondents who completed our online survey, 257 were psychiatrists. Our analysis revealed that psychiatrists prescribed significantly more subtherapeutic doses of medication than physicians in other specialties, although about 20% of both psychiatrists and nonpsychiatrists prescribed placebos regularly as part of routine clinical practice. However, compared with 6% of nonpsychiatrists, only 2% of psychiatrists deemed placebos of no clinical benefit. In addition, more than 60% of psychiatrists either agreed or strongly agreed that placebos had therapeutic effects relative to fewer than 45% of other practitioners. Findings from this pan-Canadian survey suggest that, compared with other physicians, psychiatrists seem to better value the influence placebos wield on the mind and body and maintain more favourable beliefs and attitudes toward placebo phenomena.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".